Loading...
270738 WHITE — CITV CLERK PINK — FINANCE C011l'ICll �� y � CANARV — DEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAITL File NO. ��� �Fal� BLUE — MAYOR � . . � ouncil Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By ' ' Date � � WHEREAS, The City Council deems it necessary to provide annual guidance i in the preparation of the recommended Capital Improvement Budget used to finance City development, and � WHEREAS, Interested citizens meeting as the "Goals and Policies Sub- committee of the 1977 Unified Budget Process Ad Hoc Evaluation Comnittee" and the "Ad Hoc Capital Allocation Policy Committee of the Planning Commission" have worked to expand and refine the policy statements previously adopted by � the City Council , and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed, approved and recorr�nends policies for guiding capital allocations as set forth in the report "SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 1979, 1980, 1981, and _ WHEREAS, The Finance Cor�xnittee of the City Council has reviewed and amended said report, and � ... � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint � Paul does hereby adopt the report "SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 1979, 1980, 1981" for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process during 1978. CQ,�JIVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas �v Nays ' ' ' Hozza � In Favor L� O Rcedler Against BY Sylvester Tedesco " MAR 1 7 19T� Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certi ' aPa ed�Counci�,Secretary BY Y '"�r' Ap ro by Mayor: D ' 2 � 1978 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By PUBLISNED MAR Z 5 ?978 � . . ..._._....__._ ..T , . _ .._........��..m...............�..�...�.........�..rv.w+.w..wrvr�rr.ww.raYrxw+en..u.,.n.�we.�.,...,.�...�.Wa....I 1 � � °`� �a� '�� . , . . � �� 1 �C � GITY or S�.Y`T P_��L , � _ ,. , � � s.vnoas�n . . . s�eag7eibna OFFICE OF THE DIAYOB �a�,a��� 3:IZ aITY H 1LL SAINT PAICTL, �'TI1V'�ESOTA :»l0� (61°) 898-4:3=3 GEOA(3E LATIMEB MaYOs MEMORANDUM T0: Council President Robert Sylvester and Members of the City Council of Saint Paul FROM: George Latimer, Mayor RE: Amendment to Policy Do- r� nt Appendix DATE: April 27, 1978 Attached are copies of section 7.2 of "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy 1979, 1980, 1981." Section 7.2 deals with Planning Corrmission procedures for evaluating Capital Improvement Budget proposals and was adopted 6y the Commission April 14 and distributed through the Early Notification System April 17. ' As the amendment does not contain policy statements with respect to the Unified Capital Improvement Budget and Program Process (UCIBPP) , no action by Council is necessary. Enc. ^�C� . � ��-'�f� _- , . � ' � SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY ' 1979, 1980, 1981 � � ' � � 1 1 1 � � , The attached pages constitute Section 7.2 of this document and should be inserted in your copy as pp. , 56-59. Page�. 60 re�ins blank. Section 7.2 was added to Chapter 7.0 of the Appendix by Planning Commission resolution on April 14, 1978. � The document may be further amended in 1978 to add policies M and N. These deal with Identified Treat- ment Areas (ITAs) . M and N were not developed with ' the other policies because certain relevant informa- tion was not available in early 1978. The informa- tion is part of a report prepared for the city by � the Center for Urban and Reqional Affairs (CURA) at the University of Minnesota. The report is now under revi ew. ' ' DIVISION OF PLANNING ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL 421 WABASHA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA, 55102 ' TELEPHONE: 612-298-4151 � • . � � • 1.Funds committed to previous phases of a project (policy � ' H). 2.Planning Commission's determination of proposal 's , effect on furthering capital allocation policy strategy elements (policies A, C, D, �, Transmittal to the CIB Comnittee will be in the form of a "Yes, Partial , No" � determination). 3.Whether the proposal is for improvement to an existing facility or is for developing a new facility (policy I). � 4.Whether land acquisition is involved, and for what purposes (policy Jb.l and Jb.2). � 5.Leveraging and return projected for a proposal (policy Ja.2, Jb.3, and K). � 6.Discouragement of use of tax abatement as a development incentive (policy L). � 7.Operating/maintenance costs associated with a proposal � (policy R1 ). � 8.Adequacy and logic of phasing and programning of proposal (policy S). � The Planning Commission also recommends that the CIB Comnittee task forces continue to partially base their priority recommendations on other reasonable criteria designed to judge the worthiness of a proposal . In the rpast, these evaluation criteria have included: 9.Priority classification by operating departments � responsible for implementing a proposal. lO.Priority classification by affected district councils. � 11 .Planning Commission's determination of conformance with St. Paul 's Comprehensive Plan. (Transmittal to the CIB Corr�nittee will be in the form of a "Yes, Partial , No" � determination). 12.Extent of area or number of people affected by a � proposal. 13.Extent of usage throughdut the year. ' 14.Expected useful life of a proposal. � 55 . � ' � � 15.Extent to which a proposal duplicates another public � or accessible private facility. 16.Degree to which proposal meets or exceeds identified � need it is proposed to address. 17. Impact of the proposal on aesthetics or environment � (Commission suggest adding heritage preservation to this item) . 18. Impact on energy demand. � The Commission recommends that these evaluation criteria � be retained on the task force project rating sheet. The Commission also asks consideration by the CIB Committee of an addition to this list of non-policy evaluation criteria: � 19. Inclusion in Planning Commission recommended Capital Improvement Program. � Evaluation criterion number 19 would give additional consideration to proposals which have been made part � of the recommended Capital Improvement Program by the Plann�ing Commission. These nineteen items are recommended by the Planning � Comnission for CIB Committee consideration as the core of the 1978 project rating sheet to be used by CIB Committee task forces. , 7.2 PLANNING COMMISSION As a glance at policy statements in chapters 3.0, 4.0 and POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 5.0 will show, several levels of policy are represented � in Figure 10 on page 54. That figure assigns policy monitoring or implementation responsibility. It breaks Planning Commission responsibility into two classifica- � tions: "Project Review" and "Budget Review". Project review is the examination of individual capital � expenditure proposals to determine their conformance with strategy policies A, C, D and E. The budget review category is an indication that the � Commission will also examine the CIB Committee recomrnended Capital Improvement Budget to see how well it follows strategy policies B, F, and G. � On page 58 is a photographically reduced copy of the Planning Commission Proposal Evaluation sheet to be used � by Division of Planning staff in assisting the Commission formulate its project review recommendations. The form � 56 � - IMPROVE T BUDGET COMMITTEE ' SAINT PAUL LONG RANGE CAPITAL MEN TASK FORCE PROJECT RATING SHEET � FIGURE 11 PROJECT NAME: OPERATING DEPARTMENT: PROJECT NO.: � TASK FORCE MEMSER RATING PROJECT: Score Rater's MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS Ran e Score � A? District Council Priority Rarilcing: First Priority 10 Second Priority 8 Third Priority 6 Fourth Priority 4 � Fifth Priority 2 Remainin Priorities 0 B) Departmental Priority ClassiEication C-Critical 4 to 10 V-Valuable 4 to 8 � (TOp of score range is appropriate B-Beneficial 4 to 6 ` unlesa classification qiven eeems D-Deairable 1 to 3 ina ro riate) - uestionable 0 implementation by the.C2B Coawittee and have budget allocations � approved by the City Council (If NOT score zero) 2 to 10 , D) Confozmance with Co�rehensive Plan Yes 6 to 10 Partial 2 to 5 � (Plannin Commission Determination) No � E) Conformance with Capital Allocation Policies Yes 6 to 10 (Strateqy Policies A, C, D, E, M & N) Partial 2 to 5 (plannin Commission Deternunation) No � F) Project is identified in the Planninq Commission's � Recommended Ca ital Im rovement Pro ram (If NOT, acore zero) 6 to 10 G) Project Will Serve Citywide Population 7 to 10 Several Neighborhooda 3 to 7 One Nei hborhood 0 to 3 � H) Project Will be Utilized All Year Round 7 to 10 Five to Eleven Months 3 to 7 Four Months or Less 0 to 3 i) Project's Useful Life Expectancy 30 or More Years 7 to 10 11 to 29 Years 3 to 7 � 4 to 10 Years 0 to 3 3 Years or Less � J) Project will be used jointly by inter/intra- overnmental entities (If NOT, score zero) 6 to 10 � K) Project will NOT duplicate other available public or rivate facilities (If DUPLICATION, score zero) 4 to 10 L) If project encourages rehabilitation or replacement of existing obsolete facilities and: Uses already-owned land - 7 to 10 � Requires acquisitions in conformance with Policy .J - 3 to 6 Requires acquisitions not in conformance with Polic J - � M) Property Acquisitions in conformance with Policy J which have � vacant land. (If NOT, score zero) 6 to 10 N) Project adequately proqrammed and phased 0 to 10 O) Public Environment, Aesthetics and/or Historical Preservation � will be enhanced (If NOT, score zero) 4 to 10 P) Enerqy Consumption will be: Reduced '7 to 10 Increased-Minimum 4 to 6 Increased-NOrnial 1 to 3 Increased-Substantial 0 , Q) Cost of Operation and/or Maintenance will: Se Reduced 5 to 10 Not Chanqe 0 to 5 Increase � R) Tax Revenue to City will: Increase 5 to 10 � Not Change 0 to 5 Be Reduced � � S) Public Funds provide committed Private Greater than 1:6 8 to 10 1� Capital leveraginq in the following ratios: 1:3 to 1:6 4 to 8 , � � 1:1 to less than 1:3 1 to 4 � � T) City funding will earn share of available Federal/ � State/Private rant or non-cash credit (If NOT, score zero) 6 to 10 M U) Rater's general appraisal of project 6 to 10 � � TOTAL SCORE 0 to 210 � PROJECT NOTES: 57 - ' � FIGIirZE 12: PLANNING COMMISSION EVALUATION SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION � PA()PUSAL EVALUATION Project name Log number ' A. Nghbad revital acts aimed at areas of � � deterior hsng w/ greatest potential for attract pvt reinvestment. C. Svc Sys impvmts should spt nghbad --� POLICIES revital � or lst prior for Svc Sys impvmts � should be for areas where poor cndtn of Svc Sys can be demo to be depress resale value or deter — — — � maint invest. D. Subsidy capital and Svc Sys impvmts in direct spt of econ devel should emphasize nghbad revital as lst consideration. ___� �, E. 2nd consideration should be for other commercial/retail reuse or revital. � *****TRANSMIT to CIB rating sheet item E � (Y, P, N = Yes, Partial, No) _ � i. Plan conformance a. Bicycles — -- ----- — � PLANNING b. Parks & Recreation _ ___ CONSIDERATIONS c. Fire Services _____ d. Multi-service Centers ___ _ ___ � e. Swimning Facilities _ __ f. Streets & Nighways Component g. Transportation Control � h. Tommorrow's Framework (downtown) i. River Corridor _ _ _____ � j. Residential Impvmt Strategy ____ __ k. CBD Parking Policy __,_ __ 1. District (adopted) _._ __.____ ________ � *****TRANSMIT to CIB rating sheet item D (Y, P, N = Ves, Partial, No) ___ ______ 2. Progranming/coordination ________ ______ _ ___ __ � *****TRANSMIT to CIB rating sheet item F (Y, N = Yes, No) ---- -- -__----- 3. Environmental 11.1 Air _ _____ 11.2 Ground water ___ 11.3 Surface water _ _ � 11.4 Vegetation ' 11.5 Animal life 11.6 Noise � 11.7 Land - --i 11.8 Aesthetics — _ _— _—_ � 11.9 Socioeconomic 4. Outstanding positive aspects FLAG -- ---- --- � PC Form 150/151 � March 1918 gJh IIIIII { I 58 � „ ,, • . � � . � ' _ _ , . is divided into two parts. The upper third of the form constitutes the policy portion, where each capital ex- � . penditure proposal is checked for conformance with policies A, C, D, E. � The lower two-thirds of the form is the planning con- siderations portion. In this portion each capital expenditure proposal is checked against listed plans to assure consistency with appropriate elements of St. Paul 's � Comprehensive Plan. The lower portion of the evaluation sheet also includes a programming/coordination check and an environmental impact check. The last item on the � � evaluation sheet is a place to note any outstanding positive aspects of each proposed capital expenditure. � Using this evaluation procedure, the Planning Comnission will review capital improvement proposals from the per- spective of both plan conformance, in accordance with M. S. 462.356, Subdivision 2, and conformance with � appropriate adopted policies. Recomnendations based upon this review will be provided to the CIB Committee and to the Mayor and Council . � On page 57 is a reproduction of the rating sheet adopted by the CIB Comnittee for use in 1978 by its task forces. . � � � � . � � � � � � � � 59 ;, �,�. �� j ' �"; � a' 7��j , . CITY OF SAINT PAUL • � � d �f� OFFICE OF THE.CITY COIINCIL ;�.'� � .�.,4,��. . ij�s+¢a9�'eu-� wt,,��r:.�••. Dote ; March 14, 1978 COMMITTEE RE POR1' TO : Saint Paut Gity Cou�cii F R 0 M � Com m ittee O t1 FTNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL ROSALIE BUTLER , choirman, makes 4he foiiowing _ report on C.F. C] Ordinance [X� Resolution [� Other t TITLE : � At its meeting on February 13, the Committee recommended approval of the following resolutions: ✓1. Adopting the report "SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 1979, 1980, 1981" �or use in the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process during 1978 2. Commending each citizen member on the Planning Cor�mission, the Unified Budget Process Ad Hoc Evaluation Comnittee and the City Staff assigned to these committees for the development of this comprehensive and far-sighted document � CTTY H�I.L SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNFSOTA 55102 ���._�,. , ��' �• 2, �� 7.3�' SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY � 1979, 1980, 1981 �'�`�' �`' , � � ���«�� ;57���.�°`� r�s i 1 � 1 � s i 1 ' r: � � , i 1 DIVISION OF PLANNING , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL 421 WABASHA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA, 55102 ' TELEPHONE: 612-298-4151 � G LOSSARY , Ad valorem taxes: Property or real estate tax paid based on the value of the property. Bond: M nterest-bear ng cert cate o n e te ness. ' Bond funds: Dollars obtained through sale of bonds. (�` Capital: An accumulation of goods or money. � Capital allocation: Assignment of available capital to uses, either by function (e.g., streets, sewers) or by geographical area. � Capital expenditure: Actual spendtng of capital for projects. i Capital forniation: Act or process of accumulating goods or money, usually through saving or borrowing. In city government, an important means of capital formation � is through grant-in-aid from other levels of government. 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 canmitments 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, affirmed or modified, and implemenCed through adoption by City Council of a Capital Improvement Budget. � CIB Caimittee: See St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Canmittee below. Comnunity Development Block Grant (CDBG): Monies made available annually to St. Paul by HUD through provisions of the Housing and Community Development Acts of � 1974 and 1977. Community Development (Block Grant) Program: Refers to both Federal and local activities connected with implementation of the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. ' Cammunity Development Division: The division of St. Paul's Departanent of Planning and Economic Development (DPED) with respons9bility 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. p Debt service: Annual or semi-annual payment of interest and repdyment of principal on a loan. 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 Development (DPED): The newest department of St. Paul city government. Comprised of the Planning Division, Economic Development Divlsion, Cortmunity Development Uivision, and Renewal Division. Downtown People Mover (DPM): A fixed-guideway automatic publ9c transit system under study for ' downtown St. Paul. E Entit ement grant: That portion of CDBG monies to which a city is entitled by formula, as opposed � to a discretionary grant made at the discretion of.the Secretary of HUD. feneral obligation bond: A certificate of indebtedness issued and sold by a city to generate capital. 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). H Housing and Urban Development HUD), U. S. Department of: The department of Federat government whdch ' administers the Cortmunity Development Block Grant Program. Housing Assistance Plan (HAP): A plan required by HUD as part of a city's application for Cammunity Development Block Grant funds. The HAP identifies housing needs of people with ' low and moderate incomes and establishes goals for meeting those needs. (continued on back inside cover) � 1 c� D [� � � � . � � . � ST. PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATIQN POLICY 1979, 1980, 1981 � This document proposes p4licie� �o apply ta sel�ction of Capital Improv�nent Budget prp�ects in 1979, 1980' d11d 1981 . It is similar to last year's capital a1location policy document. The � principal differences are th�se: 1. It has a three-year scope. � 2. It incorporates changes in Conanunity Development Block Grant Program direction as a result of enactment of the I�ousing and Comnwnity Development Act of 1977. � ff ki d and levels of olic and uts 3. It recognizes di er�n� n & � Y P them in separate chap'�ers beginnir�g with broad policy � (Chapter 3.0) and stepping through chapters (4.0 and 5:0) of greater specificity. I 4. It collects in one docwnent virtually all policies directly affecting the Unifie� Capita9 Improvemen� Program and Budget Process. � 5. It revises, refines, and details both concepts and policies introduced last year. � Policies are: 3.4 STRONG, STABLE POLIGY A � NEIGHBORHOODS: IT W�ULD BE QESIRABLE FOR jHE CITY TQ TAKE STATEMENTS OF POLICY NEIGHBORHOOD REYITALIZAT�OP+I ACTION AIMED (P. 20) SPECIFICALI,Y AT THOSE AREAS OF DETERIORATED HOUSZMa WTTF� THE 6R�ATEST PpTENTIAL FOR �i� ATTRACTING PRIVAT� REINV�STMfNT. � , � � � �, SAMIT Pl4tA. GITY PLANN�IG, 421 WABA�HA STRE�T, SAINt F'AUL, MI�UVESOTA 55102 RB�1 � I ,: ,� � POLICY B � NEW ALLOCATION OF SUBSIDY CAPITAL FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORH�D IMPROVEMENT SHOULD fOLLOW THIS � DISTRIBUTION: Approximate Recommended Area % of Total � of Subsidy � �Cat�e or� Res. Blocks Capital "��, "B" , and Improvement III 30� 70-75� � A11 Other , 70% 25-30� POLICY C � NEW SERVICE SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT SHOULD SUPPOR7 NEIGHBOR- HOOD REVITALIZATION (FOR EXAMPLE, ITA'S). . FURTHERMORE, IN AREAS WHICH HAVE_NOT BEEN CHOSEN � FOR NEI6HBORHOOD REVITALIZATION, FIRS7 PRIORITY FOR SERVICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE FOR AREAS WHERE POOR CONDITIOM OF SERVICE SYSTEMS , � CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE DEPRESSING RESALE VALUE OF PROPERTY OR DETERRING MAINTENANCE INVESTMENT � BY OWNERS. 3.6 STRONGER LOCAL POLICY D ECONOMY: STATEMENTS NEW ALL4CATIONS BY THE CI�Y QF ST. PAUL OF BOTH � OF POLICY (P.24) SUBSIDY CAPITAL AND CAPITAL FOR SERVICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD EMPHASIZE COMPLEMENTING =� NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION AS FIRST CONSIDERATION. 3.8 CAPITAL �POLICY E � AI,LOCATION SECOND 'CONSIDERATION FOR CITY CAPITAL ALLOCA7IONS CATEGORIES: IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF ;ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD STATEMENT OF ° B� �EIR OTHER"COMMERCIAL/RETAIL REUSE OR POLICY (P. 26) � REVITALIZATiON .(INCLUpING �WNTOWN). � POLICY F IN ORDER TO ASSURE A BALANCED APPROACH TO ANNUAL � CAPITAL ALLOCATION, ALLOCATIONS OF CAPITAL FOR NEW� PROJECTS FOR 1979, 1980 and 1981 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% RB-2 � � � . � POLICY G FOR BUDGET YEAR$ 1979, 1980, 1981 , NOT MORE TF{�I � 20� OF THE MONIES BUDGETED FOR NEW FUNDING COP�NITMENTS SHOULD BE FOR PROJECTS IN ANY ONE DISTRICT. � 4.0 IMPLEMENTA- POIICY H TION AND DEVELOPMENT THE FUNDING NEEDS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRQJECTS ROLICIES (p. 27) WHICH HAVE R�CEIVED PREVIOUS BUDGET APPROPRIATI�IS � FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS, ACQUISITION AND/OR C�tSTRUCTION PHASES, NORMALlY HA�VE PRIQRITY OVER NEW PROJECTS. � POLICY I WITHIN SERVICE SYSTEM CATEGORIES, REHABI�ITATION AND � REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES TAKE PRIORITY OVER EXPANSION OF� THE SERVICE SYSTEM, EXCEPT WHERE ECONOMY OR EFFICIENCY FACTORS, OR PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, INDICRTE '�HAT 5I1CFi REHABIL�TATIQN OR RERLACENI�NT IS � INADVISABLE. POLICY J � ' GENERALLY, THE CITY WILL BUDGET ACQUISITION FUNDING FOR NEW PROJECTS DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS UNDER THE FOlLOWING CONDITIONS: . � A. Acquisition related to private assets. (Housing or Economic Development) 1. If the proposed reuse is in conforn�ance � with adapted C�I�y plans, and 2. If there is a responsible developer with financing comnitments in hand. � B. Acquisition related to public assets. 1. If right-of-way or easements for service systems � are deemed necessary, or 2. If there are opportunities to complete park land assembly where parcels have been previously identified for conversion to park use when they � become available, or 3. If opportunities for special grant funding exist. � POLICY K ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WILL B�E BASED ON THE MERITS OF EACH PROPOSAL AND UPON ITS ABILITY TO LEVERAGE PRIVATE � INVESTMENT DOLLARS AND OBTAIN A RETURN OF INCREASED PROPEhtTY 'TAXES IN.ACCORDANCE WITH THE IDENTIFIED LEVERAGE AND RETURN ON INVESTMEPIT GUIDELINES. � � . � RB-3 . � � � � POLICY 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 ABATE- MENT PERIOD SHOULD NOT BE LOWER THAN THE VALUATION � OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THE PROJECT IS STARTED INCREASED AT A 6� RATf COMPOUNDEO ANNUALLY OVER THE TERM OF ABATEMENT. � POLICY M (RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL ITA POLICY) POLICY N � (RESERVED FOR COh�IERCIAL ITA POLICY) POLICY 0 � IF THE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MQVER (DPM) IS IMPLEMENT�D, $5 to $6 MILLION IN CITY CIB FUNDS WILL BE APPROPRI- ATEO AS MATCH FOR THE ESTIMATED �45 MILLION FEDERAL � DPM GRANT. POLICY P � DISEASED TREE REMOVAL AS A SPECIAL ALLOCATION WILL BE CONCLUDED WITH THE 1980 �CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. REFORESTATION SHOULD CONTINUE AT AT LEAST A � $1 MILLION ANNUAL LEVEL THROUGH THIS 1979-1981 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 5.1 GENERAL BUDGEi' POLICY � � POLICIES (P. 31) GIVEN TNE CITY'S FISCAL CONSTRAINTS, IT IS DESIRABLE � TO ALLOCATE N�INICIPAL CAPITAL TO PROJECTS IN 1979, 1980, and 1981 WHICH WILL NOT RESULT IN A NET INCREASE � IN CITY OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. AT A MINIMUM THIS MEANS THAT: 1 .Essential facilities which can be financed and � operated by the city and another unit of govern- ment will be given a high priority if they can be � constructed and operated at less cost than separate facilities. 2.Generally, there will be no allocation of capital for � purchase or construction of facilities for human sQrvice pragrams (as defined in Glossary) in 1979, 1980 and 1981 and no CDBG monfes will be appropriated to � finance annual operation and maintenance of new human service progran�s in 1979, 1980 and 1981. 3.New swimming pools will not be considered for funding � in 1979, 1980 and 1981. RB'-4 � � � � • PO�ICY S . DURING THE 1979-1981 CAPITAL IN�ROVEMENT PROGRAM, � THE CITY WILL ANNUALLY BUDGET FOR EACH PROJECT PHASE ONLY THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF NIONEY WHICH CAN REASON- � ABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE EXPENDED WITItiN THE BUOGET YEAR. � `� THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT `PROGRAM WILL IDENTIFY FUND$ REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE FINANCING OF A PROJECT IN FUTURE YEARS. THIS TENT�ITIVE COMMITMENT IS SUBJECT � TO ADOPTION $Y CITY COUNCIL OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE PROJ�CT. POLICY T � DETERMINATION OF WHICH FUND SOURCE IS MOS7 APPROPRIATE FOR FINANCING F,ACM OP THE CITY'S BUDGET PRIORITIES WILL BE MADE A S FOLLOWS: � 1 .A11 street improvement pro3ects on Municipal 3tate Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Hi ghway routes will be considered for fundir�g primarily with monies � allocated to the city specifically for th�se routes. 2.Capital improvements which are eligible for metro- � politan, State or Federal programs or private grants should be so financed. CpBG and CIB moni�s may be used to provide local matching funds, if appropriate. � 3.Capital improvements which could be financed with specific bonding authority may be' so recarmended tf Cf�Y CQurIC�1 h�� �11�ic�fi�� i�� inter��iRtl �A uti l i�� � such authority; 4.Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG � funding will be so funded; and 5.Capital improvements which cannot be financed with monies governed by para�raphs (1) through (4) will � be considered for CIB bond funding. 5.2 BOND FINANCING POLICY U1 � RQt,��Y (P, �2) THE GITY MAY CONSIDER ISSUING UP TO $6,500,p00 IN - CIB BONDS TN 191�. � POLICY U2 �THE CITY MAY CONSIDER ISSUING WATER POLLUTION ABATE- MENT BpNDS IN 1979 TO F�NANCE THE FIRST CONSTRUCTIQN � PHA�E OF THE THOMAS-qALE SEWER PROJECT. . � � RB-5 . �' � � POLICY U3 THE CITY DOES NQT INT;.N� �� iSSUE TAX LEVY-SUPPORTED � BONDS IN 1979 FOR TNE RESIDENiIAL QR COMMERCIAL RE- MABILITATION PROGRAMS, PARKING FACILITIES, OR URBAN RENEWAL. � POLICY U4 NO TAX INCREMENT BOND-FINANCED PROJECTS ARE PRESENTLY PROPOSED. IF TAX INCREMENT BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS AR� � DEVELOPED, THEY MUST MEET REQUIREMENTS QF SECTION 5.3 "TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POLICY° BEFORE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ISSUING BONDS. � 5.3 TAX INCREMENT POLICY V1 FINANCING POLICY REVENUE PRGJECTIONS BY CONSULTANT: R�v�nue projections (P. 33) far all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by � a-private financial consultant rather than a bond consultant. � � POLICY V2 - DEBT SERUICE FROM BOND SALE PROCEEDS: Debt service for all tax �ncrement urojects will be paid from bond � proceeds for no mnre than �he first �hree years of , project implementation when no tax increments or other project re�enues are generated. POLICY V3 � OTHER C�STS FUNDED FROM BOND SALE PROCEEDS: All costs relating to any t�x increment proposals should be � funded with bond proceeds and included in the justifi- cation af eaGh prapasal . These costs include, but are not limited to: design, acquisition and relocation, � construction, bond consultant, financial consultant and staff time. POLICY V4 � CONDITIONS TO BE FU�FILLED FOR TAX INCREMENT BOND FINANCING: 1 .There must be a clear statement of public purpose; � 2.The prospective developer must have financing � available; and - 3.There must be a written contract among the developer, the city and any involved public authorities. The � contract must identify, among other things, estimates for all anticipated costs related to the development � estimates for annual operating and maintenance costs � associated with the completed project, and who is RB-6 � � � � _ � • responsible for meeting each of these costs. � POLICY V5 ' USE OF TAX INCREMENT BONQ SALE PROCEEDS 1N RCCORDANC� � - WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT: Tax increment bond monies will be exp�nded only in accordance with the terms identi- fied in the written agreen�nt, unless otherwise provided for by City Council resolution as reconmended by the ° - � director of the Depa�^tment of Finance and Management Services. � 5.4 REHABILITATION POLICY W1 LOAN PROGRAM ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGA►TION BON 0.S FOR RESIDENTIAL FINANCING POLICY OR COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION: See P�licy U3. � (P. 34) POLICY W2 ' RECYCLING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST - REHABILITATION � L�ANS: A11 city �ond monies artd CdBa monies used to provide reside tial or comnercial rehabilitation loans shall be recycled for new loans as the original loans are repaid. � � � � � � � , . � � � RB_7 ` . . • � � � � �i#y of saii�t paul � plar�n� cornmission re�l�tion � file number �a-3 date 2-,o-�s � �f,� � ' WHEREAS,'\'�e Planning Comnission of the City of Saint Paul is ch�rged with respqnsibit�ty for development and revtew of policy to uide the annual - Unifled Capital In�provement Program and Budget Process �UCIPBP); and � WHEREAS, the Planning .Comnission has reviewed previously adopted UCIP�A policies and r�v-ised. refined, and detailed them in a report .entitted � "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy 1979, 1980. 1981", a copy of which is attached with t.his resolution; NOW BE IT THEREF�tE RESOLYfD, that the Rlanning Com�ission approves the � report entitled "Saint Paul CapitaT A1location Policy 1979. 1980, 1981", as amended, and directs transmittal to the Mayor and City Council for review and adopt�on. . � � ;.. � � � � �. ���('� � 4tto Hu�nmer seconded by .���� Ms�� � in fav►or__13__ ,` against___o_. � ' RB-8 - � � SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY � 1979, 1980, 1981 � A STAFF WORKING PAPER 78-SWP-150-1 � � APPROVED BY SAINT PAUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION � FEBRUARY 10, 1978 RESOLUTION 78-3 � RECOMMENDED FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL BY THE FINANCE, MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL � COMMITTEE OF THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 13, 1978 � � ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL MARCH 17, 1978 � � � Document No. I � ! Division of Planning � Department of Planning and Economic Development 421 Wabasha Street St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 � � TABLE OF CONTENTS � � � LIST OF FIGURES iv � 1.0 INTRODUCTION � � 2.0 CAPITAL 3 ALLOCATION AS PART � UF THE OVERALL BUDGET 2.1 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS � � 3.0 GUIDANCE: UNDERLYING �� � RATIONALE AND POLICIES FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN SAINT PAUL 3.1 IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES: STRONG, 11 � STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY 3.2 GEOGRAPHICAL COMPONENT: WHICN NEIGHBORHOODS? 12 3.2.1 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP 12 � . E H RH D I E EN C V 16 3.3.1 THE RIGHT CAPITAL ALLOCATION TO EACH 18 TYPE OF AREA - . S RONG, STABLE NEIGHB RHO DS: STATEMENTS 20 � OF POLICY 3.5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 21 3.6 STRONGER LOCAL ECONOMY: STATEMENTS OF 23 � POLICY 3.7 STRONGER, MORE STABLE 24 STRONGER LOCAL ECONOMY? � . C TAL LL C ION C E R ES: S E EN 26 POLICY I N AND 27 � .� IM�LEMEN AT � DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 5.0 BUDGETING 31 � AND FINANCING 5.1 GENERAL BUDGET POLICIES 31 � 5.2 BOND INANCING POLICY 32 5.3 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POLICY 33 � . REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM INANCING LICY 34 APPENDICES � ii � � � � � . END X C : HUp POLICIES IN SAINT PAUL � . ED� L � MMUNI Y Q�V�LOPME T R G M OBJECTIVES 6.2 F E D E R A L C O M M U N I T Y D E V E I.O P M E N T B L O C k 3 8 GRANT PROGRAM REGULATIONS � 6.3 ELIG BLE CDBG AGTIVITIES 44 � .0 APPENDI'X 5� POLICY IMPLEMENTATION � 7. CIB COMMITTEE POLICY iMPLEMENTATION 53 7.2 PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 56 I . END X ISC LL,ANE US 61 SUPPORTING INFORMATION � . E RD N CA I L L OC TION 62 8. TENTAT VE FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR CIB AND CDBG FUNDS 1979-1982 ' � . N NC E 67 FINANCING AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS � E(� 6$ � � L CIES INDEX � � L SS R ns� e overs � � l � � ;;; ! LIST OF FIGURES � � FIGURE PAGE TITLE A v A Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget � Process for the City of St. Paul B vi Tentative 1978 Calendar for the Unified Capital � Improvement Program and Budget Process C vii Tentative Task Schedule for the Capital Improvement � Program Portion of the Unified Capital Improvement Budget and Program 1979-1981 � 4 Components of Annual Municipal Expenditure � 2 5 Types of Capital Funds and Their Uses in the � 1979-81 Unified Capital Improvement Budget and Pro�ram 3 7 City of Saint Paul Receipts in Millions of Dollars , � 1970-1976 4 9 Recent History of General Obligation Bond Issues � 5 13 Housing Condition/Income Map 6 17 Typical Municipal Capital Projects � 7 25 1978 Capital Improvement Budget by Category � 8 40 Tracts with Estimated 1977 Median Income Less than 80q of the Estimated 1977 SMSA Median Income 9 40 Percentage of Minority Population by Census Tract ` 10 54 Policy Implementation Responsibility Chart � 11 57 Rating Sheet Adopted for 1978 by CIB Committee 12 58 Planning Commission Evaluation Sheet � � � � ' � ;„ � FIGURE A: A �I�Z� �ZT� ���r pPfK'R1W 7�ND BUOGET pA0CE�8 !OR THE CITY 0! S11INT PAUL � Proe�sf_StrP� _ - 2TY ST11Pr NTESN DISTaICTS PIANNING CO(JNCIL �Q����� C�NM2S'JION �U►YOR � STAIF p= �Goal� i . Oftic� ot Clty Pl�nrtlnq 1. D1srx14L Couneils Polici�� [os . 9udq�t Dir�ctor 2. Di�triet Orqaniucions � Cspiwl R�acurc� - Como�nley D�v�lopaat a. Planninq Cow�itt��s 1111oc�elen" • Counail Sulf Adoption o[ CITY COt1NCxL i .�.�. z Pollci�s tot Capieal wsourc� 1111ocation" I C2TIZEN CSTY OPtA11TING O?!�R AGLNCILS Pro]Kta ORGJINIZJ►?IONS OEPAR�S fd�nei!!�d 1• Distcic� Councils 1. �ls� 1. Quati-City Aq�nci�� 2. Citia�n Groups 2. Polic� A. Post 1►nehority 3, su�in�ss Oeqanlutions �. Dubllo Norka D. School Distsict � 1. Co■smiey S�svic�a C. Board ot waur S. linanc� i llu�agwent S�sv1c�� C�is�ion�r• 6, 'Bowiaq i il�v�lopwnt D. Civic C�nt�r Authority ]►aehority" 2. Oov�snm�nisl Vn1ta A. t�tzo Counell � B. et�ero t��t� C. INtro Tr�ufsit 0. County o! A�e��y E. Minn. NiqbwaY WPk. 3. Prlvat� Ag�nci�� � 0lTICE�CIT-LANNING Planninq i 1. City Pl�nn�rs Tiwinq Conllicas �. Op�ratinq O�partornts c � IdanOiti�d ��1is 3. Distriet Blamurs a. Council Sts!! Psoj�ct OPEAATZMG DEPAATHBNTS 1 Yh�slnq �nd 1. D�p�sen�nt Statf Costinq 2. Oi�tzict Plann�r� lundieq Requsst � D�cision Naking CI?I2EN OFGA.VIZATIQNS OPERATSDtG DEPARTMEtrTS oTHER 1►GENCLES Funding R����ts 9IIDGST DIRECTOR �oemallv 3ulynitted � Py71T1N�Nf', STUP 11N71LYSIS DZSTRICT COUNCIL Psoject COletI58I0N 1. Otfic� oL City Planninq COUNCIL STAFB 1lnalysi• 11L�1Itw 2. Dud9�t Oltic� �I� �. Co�+nity D�velopane �. Prop�sty Mana9�nwnt � S. ltousing � RadaveloopNnt 1►uth. Reco��ndations Tranasitt�d BUDGET DIAFCTOR Diatribut� tt�qu��ts to IB COeaITCeE � t�ppeopri�C� Ta�k !'oze� R�vi�w Proj�cts. COt�lON2TY STNtETS a tlE9IDtNT21►L �N Tour siC�a. !]1ZILITIES UTILITIES i ECONOMIC SeRVICL� Oi�tsict Prea�nbtlons. '17�SK TASX DEYELOPNENT TASK � Consid�s Statf lORCE !'OACE T11SR lORCL �O�E Analysis. 1. R�pr�s*nt�tivss 1. il�pt���ntativ�t 1. Mpr�s�ntativ�s l. R�Bs���nt+eives Piloilty Rak� Ptpj�Ct�. IIsrnn �w�nte�n tra� awnt.Nn tso� s�vadliin" Lrom s�wnts�n R D�t�zaln� !'w+dinq distsicts districts di�tricts distzicts ' PriositS�s and 2• 'l'WO CIH CawietN 2. Two CI8 Coemitt�� 2. 'NO CiD Coeleb� 2. T+o CID Coomitt�a A�cao�ndatiops. Nenb�ss M�mbsLS M�mbess NuWar; i� formulat� R�coansed�d Budq�t Usinq Ta�k Posc� CIB CONlIITfFE Prioriti�s a Aecomn�nda- � tions Revi�w CIB Coamtitt�e R�eawn�nd�d Budg�t i NAYOR'8 SENZOR lIANACEI�NT TFJ1M COUNCIL STAFF Id�ntily Dlsaqr�NUnes � Conaid�r CIB Coaeitt�� Wco��nd�d Budqee i Stat! Mcooarndation� '�ro� to D�Nraiiu Msycr's ?ropoa�d Hudget � Consid�r NcamNnda- CZ1'Y CqUNCiL iions and Adopt Budq�t OLtic� o! th� M�yor Hudq�t Section-11/15/76 , V . � FIGURE 6. TEN'tAT7VE-1978 CALENDAR FOR THE UNIFIED CAPITAL SblPROVEMENT PROGRAM"6 BUDGET PROCESS - � (U�ed for determining the 1979 Capital Improvement Budgetl ppOPTION OF GOALS AND POLICIES FOR CAPITAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION . A) Citiaene and City staff identify major needs. exiatinq planning � � strategieS and current budqet policies by 'Decembeic 20; 1977 8) Cit�zens and City staff draft a three-year funding atrateqy � (budget policies) for all capital resources available to address Saint Paul's most critical needs. These Comprehensive '�hreg*Year Community Development Budqet Policies will be distributed to districts through the Early Notification System f bY JanUary 16, 1978 � C) Steering Coaunittee of the planning Commission holds a public hearing on all budgat policies identified in the drafted Comprehensive Three-Year Community Development Plan J�nuary 31 D) Planninq Commiss�on recoimnends budget policiea to be included � in thp Comprehensive Three-Year Cownunity Developme�t Plan Fabruary 10 E) City Couneil's Finance, Management and Personnel Committee � review8 recommended budget policies by February 20 F) City Council adopts Saint Paul budget policies to be included in the Comprehensive Three-Year Community Development Plan February 28 G) Adopted Saint Paul budqet policies distributed through the � Early Notification System March 3 PROGRAMMING j�ND BUpGETING PROCESS ACTZVITIES 1) Degartments and districts identify projects in preliminary t �9� by _ April 3 2) Entities requestinq project fundinq meet with appropriate April 10 to April 14 operatinq departments, planrters and City staff to identify: - . � a. Planninq conflicts b. Timiqg conflicts F. Adppted budget policy conflicts , d. Cost estimates � 1. Capital: Design, acquisition, construction, etr. - 2. Annual operatinq costs " 3. Effect on revenues. � 3) Final aubmission date for formally submittinq project funding May 1 requeste to �ity Budget Director. I 4) Planning Commission review to determine requested project's May 8 to June 8 conformance to the Comprehensive Plan and Adopted Goals � and Poiicies for Capital Resource Allocation. "' 5) Task Force Budget Priorities and Recommendations. Includes April 17 to June 30 review of adopted budgets and policies, bus tour, presenta- tions by various citizen qrganizations and operating depart- � ments, staff analysis and project ratinq. 6f CIB Committee fundinq priorities and project recommendations July 3 to July.18 to the Mayor and City Council after reviewing tssk force ' � rpconlmendatlona and holdlinq a public hearinq. 7) MaYor's.Senior Management Team Recormnendations to Mayor. July 24 to July 28 8) Mayor holds Public Hearinq on Budqet Recommendations betwean Su1y 24 and 7uly 28' � 9) !layor's Budget Priorities and Recommendations by July 31 101 Maydr's Proposed Capital improvement Budqet Report preparation. Auqust 1 to Auqust 11 11) Mayor xransm:ts report to City Council by {Ordiqance k16306) Auqust 15 ' � 12) Finance Comm�ttee Public Hearinq and City Council Pub1iF Heaiing between August 28 to Sept. 21 � 13) CiGy Council adopts 1979 Capita� 7mprovement Budqet by September 28, 1978 14) Tax Levy Resolution adopted by (reguirement by State law) October 10, 1978 151 Grank applications are pzepared by December 29, 1978 : � Mayor's Of�ice-Budget Section r_un.46 AraiteA ('frrnhor ll_ 1Q77 ' � i �, �IGURE C TENTATIVE TASK SCHEDULE FOR THE CAPITAL � _ IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM* PORTION OF THE ! � UNIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND j PROGRAM 1979 - 1981 � January 1978 Department directors identify for themselves priority projects from i , � the standpoint of (1) department needs and (2) adopted plans. � � January 9 Distribution of first draft of "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy" ; � to department directors. i � January 13 Directors ' meeting to review and discuss "St. Paul Capital ' Allocation Policy". � Januar 31 Ca ital Allocat' n , ,Y p io Policy Committee of the Planning Comm ssion holds � public meeting to hear corr�nents from departments, district repre- � � sentatives, neighborhood groups, and the general public. i i February 10 Planning Commission recommends "St. Paul Capital Allocation �, � Policies" to City Council . i February 13 City Council Finance, Management and Personnel Comnittee reviews recomnended " St. Paul Capital Allocation Policies". � Februar 28 Cit Council ado t c ' y y p s apital allocation policies for 1979, 1980, � 1981 . IMarch 3 Adopted policy document distributed through Early Notification System and to department directors. � March Planning staff ineets with departments to discuss policies vis-a-viS department priorities. Department directors begin lay�ng out � departmental capital expenditure rationale for 1979, 1980, 1981 . April 3 Departments and districts identify Capital Improvement Budget and Capital Improvement Program entries in preliminary form. ■ May 1 Final date for formally submitting Capital Improvement Budget and Capital Improvement Program requests to City Budget Director. � May 8 - June 8 Planning Comnission review of Capital Improvement Budget requests. � June 9 - July 18 Planning Commission review, comments, recommendations regarding Capital Improvement Program; public hearing on Capital Improvement Program. � Before July 18 Formal combination and sychronization of CIB Committee Capital Improvement Budget recomnendations and Planning Commission Capital Improvement Program recommendations. Transmittal to Mayor and � City Council � *The Capita1 Improvement Program is the tentative schedule of capital projects to be undertaken in the years (1980 and 1981 , in this case) following the Capital 1 Improvement Budget year (1979) . �;; 1 � � 1.0 INTRODUCTION � � � . "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1979, 1980, 1981" � provides the framework that will guide allocation of Saint Paul 's capital improvement funds from 1979 through 1981 . � iIt includes: (1) goals for the city; (2) policies which should be followed for the next three years to help � achieve those goa1s; and (3) specific recanmendations and � concerns regarding certain types of projects and funding. These goals, policies and recommendations are also the � foundation for the three-year community development plan required by the Federal government as part of Saint Paul 's Year V (1979) Community Development Block Grant application. � Individuals and groups who will use this document to assist their decision-making during the next three � . annual budget processes include neighbprhood organizations, district councils, city operating agencies, the Saint Paul City Planning Commission, task forces of the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee, the CIB Committee � itself, and the Mayor. At the end of each annual budget process, the Saint Paul � City Council will make final decisions about which capital expenditures bes� meet the needs of the city and should be funded. � This document coordinates and builds upon existing city policies and plans, including materials in "Goals and Policies for Capital Resource Alloca�ion" (City Planning � Office: July 9, 1976) . A similar document, "Policies for Evaluating 1978 Capital � Expenditure Proposals" (Saint Paul City Planning: April 1977) , guided the budget process followed in 1977. This document builds upon the 1977 policies. It is more specific and more oriented toward implementation than previous �� capital allocation policy documents. This year's goals and policies will remain the same for � a three-year period unless there are compelling reasons to consider modifications. However, there will be an annual review of policies to update and refine them. ,, Each year an ad hoc citizens group, aided by staff of the Planning Division, performs the initial review. Their recomnendations are forwarded to the Planning Comnission � for further review and then forwarded to �he Mayor. Ultimately, the Mayor recommends them to Council fior review and adoption. � 1 � � I The initial ad hoc citizens review occurs in � November. Citizens interested in participating in that review are urged to contact the Division of � Planning in early November: Division of Planning Department of Planning and Economic Development � 421 Wabasha Street Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 298-4510 � � � ' � , � � � � �� � � � � 2 � 2.0 CAPITAL ALLOCATION AS PART OF THE OVERALL BUDGET , � a' Paul 's annual bud et is divided into two parts, S int 9 operation/maintenance expenditures and capital � expendi�ures. Operation/maintenance expenditures are expenditures for � salaries, supplies and material , uti1ities and so on. They may be subdivided into three categories: l .operation/maintenance expenditures to continue existing government or government-contracted services; � 2.operation/maintenance expenditures for new services; and 3.new operation/maintenance expenditures associ:ated with additional public facilities. � Capital expenditure also may be'subdivided into: three Categoriest (1) capital expenditure to upgrade or re- � place existing municipal facilities; (2) capital expenditure to create additional municipal facilities; and (3) subsidy of non-governmental capital uses. � Figure 1 on page 4 diagrams , these subdivisions and gives an example for each category. � Most local government spending goes-for operation and maintenance of existing services, sometimes leaving capital investment to occur on a catch-as-catch-can � basis. However, the City of Saint Paul is more fortunate than many other cities. In 1967 the State Legislature authorized a capital improvement bond program which has been renewed three times. This program helps assure �, continued improvement of Saint Paul 's municipal faciliti�s. The Capital Improvement Budget and Program process was 1 originally established so that bond funds would be rationally allocated. The process has been enlarged in recent years to include all federal , state and local j funds used for capital expenditure. The change of name to Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) reflects this inclusiveness. � Figure 2 on page 5 lists the types of funds which support the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process. With the excep�ion of portions of Federal Cortmunity � Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the funds are used primarily for capital expenditures. Federal CDBG funds are also used for planning and program administra�ion, � but because they are principally used for physical development, they are included in the UCIPBP. I • � 3 � , � FIGURE 1 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE � Annual municipal expenditures are made for two basic purposes: ; � .Operat�on/maintenance expenditures are for salaries and benefits , materials and supp�l'�es, uti�ities, and contracts connected with running city government and supplying services. � .Ca ip'tal ex endi�ures are typically expenditures for construction or re- construction o pu ic buildings , streets, sewers, park facilities and � so on. Municipal capital resources may also be allocated to residential or commercial rehabilitation of non-governmental structures. Bond monies are appropriately used only for capital projects which outlive the term � of the bonds financing them. Annual Municipal Expenditure Operation/Mairttenance Expenditures Capital Expenditures � -�a��neenance/�op�ration expendit__u__res_ -Ca ital ex enditure to substantiall � xi s��et�vi ces. renovate, upgrade, or rep ace � existing municipal facilities. Examples: Example: � .Salaries for police officers and .Major remodeling of the Police Annex. fire personn�l now on the forces; repair and maintenance of existing � public �Facilities. -New maintenance�operation expendi- -Capital expenditure to create � tures for new serv�ces. additional municipal facilities. Examples: Example: .Gasoline costs for additional .Cost of purchasing new park lands. � ambulance $ervice; contractual arrangemen�s for home delivery of ineal$. � -New'ma3nt�nance/p eration ex endi- -Allocation of munici al ca ital tures associate wit a itiona or subsi y to t e private sector. � public fac� ities. � , Example: Examples: .New utility costs for an additional .Rehabilitation loans and grants , � public building. e.g. , for neighborhood housing rehabilitation. .Land clearance and assembly, � e.g. , for provision of otherwise unobtainable parking space. � 4 � FIGURE 2 TYPES OF CAPITAL FUNDS AND THEIR USES IN THE 1979-1981 � UNIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET fUND TYPE USE � Bonds Capital Improvement Bonds Any capital expenditure. Capital Improvement Bond funds are dallars (Chapter 234, Laws of . borrowed by the city which are repaid from a levy on property � Minnesota, 1976) Auto Parking Facilities Act Parking facilittes. Parking Facilities Bond funds are general (Minnesota Statute 459.14) obligation bonds exclusively for acquisition of land or construction of automobile parking places. They are repaid through levies, assess- � ments, or revenue of the facility. Tax Increment Bonds Economic development. Tax Increment Bond funds are dollars borrowed to finance redevelopment of specified parcels of land. These bonds are repaid through increased property taxes resulting from redevelop- ' ment of the parcels. Development District Bonds Economic development. Development District Bond funds are dollars borrowed to finance redevelopment of a specified tract of land des9gnated as a develppment district. These bonds are repaid through � increased property taxes resulting from redevelopment in the district. Water Pollution Abatement Pollution control through construction of sewage and stormwater Bonds (Minnesota Statute facilities. General obligation bonds repaid from a levy on property. 115.41) IFederal Aid Housing and Community Comnunity development and housing projects (Community Development Block DevetopwRnt 1,1ct Block Grant Grant Program), The entitlement grant was authorized by Gongre55 in 1974 and reenacted in modified form in 1977. i Mass Transportation Oowntown People Mover F�asibility Study. If the feasibility study proves Demonstration Grant out, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration will fund 80% of construction. � Urban Development Action Economic development and facilities revitalization. Supplemental program Grant (UDAG) to the Comnunity Development Block Grant Program. Economic DevelopmenC Econom9c revitalization. Possible use of these funds is for financing Assistance Grant construction of the Civic Center Theater and Exhibition Hall. , Land and Water Conservatlon Acquisition and development of local parks and recreatton facillties. Funds (LAWCON) Administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. � State Assistance Municipal State Aid (MSA) Repair/construction/maintenance of MSA roads and bridges. Minnestoa Department of Repair/reconstruction of state highways and bridges in St.Paul. No Transportation (hkiDOT) transfer of funds involved; all contracts are let and administered by 1 MnDOT. Shade Tree Grants Removal of diseased shade trees and reforestation. Legislative Commission on Acquisition and develqpment 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 Legislature , Commission (MTC} Grant authorized funds, will assume 10% of the cost of the study (and of the project, if feasibte). Metropolitan Parks and Open Renovation/development of regional park and open space areas in St. Paul. Space Cortmission Grant � County Assistance County Aid Repair/construction/maintenance o� County State Aid (CSA) system roads and bridges and county roads. � City Funds Public Improvement Aid (PIA) Streets, sidewalks, alleys. PIA dollars are local property tax monies. � Sewer Repair Fund Unforseen sewer repair. Sewer repair dollars are local monies generated through user charges included in each water b111. 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. 5 � � t , S �, Simp y stated, t e City o Saint au oes not have enoug � dollars to undertake all capital improvements which could be put forward as reasonable requests. Hundreds of millions of dollars could be put into sewer and road work � alorre were money available. Secondly, much of the money which is available to Saint � Paul is in the form of aid from other levels of government. Often these funds must be used for specific and limited purposes. Examples include Municipal State Aid (MSA) and County Aid funds which can only be used on designated road- � ways, and CDBG funds which must be used primarily for projects that benefit people with low or moderate incomes. As indicated in Figure 3 on page 7 , total revenues ( received by the City of Saint Paul grew betw�en ,1.9.7p and 1976. However, revenues from ad valorem taxes did not increase as fast as total revenues. This indicates t Saint Paul 's growing use of funds from other sources (principally State and Federal aids) for both capital improvements and operations. � These revenues are welcomed as a means for providing local improvements and services and, at the same time, reducing � reliance on ad valorem taxes. Their use also helps free money which has fewer constraints for meeting important city needs. However, it is important to remember that � allocation decisions must reflect the mandated purposes � of the funds. Exactly how much money will be available for capital � improvements in 1979, let alone 1980 or 1981 , is a dif- ficult question to answer. The major sources of funds are Community Development Block Grant (CDBG} monies, Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) bond funds, and � municipal aids from the State and Federal governments. Total CDBG funding for Year V (1979) is anticipated to be , approximately $12 to $12.5 million. Year VI (1980) CDBG funds available to Saint Paul are estimated to be less and could be as low as $9.5 million. Furthermore, a sub- � stantial portion of the 1979 funds are already committed to activities which were funded by CDBG dollars in previous years and carry a commitment for completion (see � Section 8.2. ) The amount of CDBG funds available for capital improvements is also reduced by use of that money to support planning and administration activities re- quired by the Federal Government as part of eligibility � for the grant. " � 6 � � � FIGURE 3: CITY OF SAINT PAUL RECEIPTS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 1970-1976 . � , BOND FUNDS TEMPORARY LOANS 220 30 30 � 210' 20 20 :;.� +'i'3,� 200 1Q 'v . '•.�,�t:;, 10 � 190 j�=� •v.• i:. '�� 70 )1 7'l 73 74 75 16 7U 71 72 73 74 75�76 � ,ao ,,. ,:; PROPERTY TAXE$ i�o •>•• ``'' ao �'' OTHER TAXES� , 160 . >• 3Q 30 k;: .� .:� }:•: 150 ` 20 Z� '�'�� � 140 �'� �p 10 :��� • :;�;� �:{: ;.;:; � {.;. : i:; , 130 ::• :•: :•: •:•:• •:: •:: �: 70 71 72 73 14 75 76 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 120 BONQ FUND� .�� OTHER � iio iio ioo too , OTHER _ Transfers . qp 90 Enterprise funds\� PIR Funds � :; Intragovernmental Funds SO �:� 80 � Special Revenue funds �:::: Special Assessment �' Funds �o '��'' A I DS�GRANTS� �o Trust Fundsy " DQNATIONS Use of Mone %`�:� • , and Property ' : --- Water Department 60 :;:;; 60 60 TEMPORARY LOANS 50 5o so � OTHER TAXES, ETC. ;: '_ ao ;:;: ao ao PROPERTY TAXES 30 30 30 � •�•, • ••, • - 20 20 20 '.•:. � AIDS, GRANTS,. io � io �o DONATIONS 70 71 72 73 74 78 76 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 � � � � CIB bond funds also face constraints for 1979. As � Figure 4 on page 9 indicates, St. Paul has issued an average of $10.3 million in general obligation bonds for capital improvements in each of the last 11 years. Not all of these past issues have been CIB bonds, but � most have been for capital improvements.* Figure 4 also indicates that the level of annual debt service (payment of interest and repayment of principal ) for all ' city general obligation bonds climbed from 1967 to 1977 when it reached $14.389 million. Efforts by Mayor Latimer and the City Council to secure permanent CIB bonding , ' authority from the State Legislature and reduce city general obligation indebtedness will undoubtedly precipi- tate changes in bond issuance policy and practice. St. Paul is requesting that the 1978 Leoislature qrant such � authority in 1978. � Some 197 9 capital improvement activity will be funded ' with special aids, including Municipal State Aid (MSA) and County Aid. As of February, 1978, the Department of Public Works proposes using $2,660,775 , in MSA funds and $780,000 in County Aid for paving, bridge, and traffic improvements during 1979. Although these proposals are subject to Capital Improvement Budget Committee evaluation and recommendation, the I Public Works Department projects use of MSA and County Aid monies several years in advance. In summary, it is apparent that decisions regarding , capital expenditures must take into consideration limits on the use of some funds and prior commitments to , specific activities. In addition, the relative need for specific activities must be weighed since there are too few dollars to address all legitimate requests. r � � *Exceptions : 1968, Joint Sewer Study Bonds, $185,000; � 1974, Health Pension Bonds, $1 ,180,000; 1975, Rehabilitation Loan Program Bonds, $1 ,500,000. � Additionally, not all of the funds from Urban Renewal Series Bonds necessarily went for capital improvements. � 8 1 -- --- ---- _ ---- - _ FIGURE 4: RECENT HISTORY OF GENERAL QBLIGATIpN BOND ISSUES* � (In Millions of Do�lars) , Source; Budget Sectiqn 1/78 GOVERNMENTAL UNIT Yearen Yeare� yearen LEGEND (PURPOSE) 1967 1968 1969 1970 1911 1972 1973 1974 1915 1916 1977 Total Average Percentages � � CITY AND HRA Cap. Impr. Bonds 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.500 4,500 4.500 4.500 4.500 6.500 6.000 6.000 53.000 4.818 20.2 Water Poll. Abat. 2.000 2.000 2,000 4.000 4.000 14.000 1.273 5.3 Urban Renewal Bonds 2.215 2.645 3.000 8.600 6.355 9.045 4.100 36.020 3.275 13.7 1 Downtown Devel. Dist. .500 4.600 5.100 .464 1.9 Housing Rehab.Program 1.500 1.000 2.500 .227 1.0 Other Bonds 1.750 .185 1.18p 3.115 .283 1.2 Subtotal 8.025 6.830 4.000 7.500 6.5q0 1a.100 �2.855 19.225 20.700 7.000 6.000 113.735 10.340 43.3 ' PORT AUTHORITY 2.000 2.500 2.650 5.600 12.150 1.159 4.9 CIVIC CENTER AUTHORITY 6.000 13.000 19.000 1.727 7.2 , `�`1:::: •��"'•� I.S.D. N625 1.200 1.200 3.130 10.250 1.425 7.270 26.725 14.395 1.310 14.835 1.450 83.790 7.617 31.9 ::%''::: RAMSEY COUNTY 2.280 .760 6.860 7.545 14.450 1.100 33.595 3.054 12.8 � Total 9.225 10.030 16.230 33.030 11.335 29.230 39.580 41.165 42.060 21.835 9.150 262.870 23.897 100.1 ''Does not include refunding issues ' -_� - _. 40 �Y � � i�ti�: rj ��i• i:.$}�{.;Y, •.v:•.%.••:: .4.�y'%.� 35 - ��,�•:� �v •'��'''�'t;::y _ ';#',1�j':'t� fi,.;.,:.; , - •'•':': � . •x i•'r'> 1 �'+': 30 :��:::,, ''�'�i' ���;��3 - '•`'•''�" i �k _ 'r:�' w. �����. '�1 � � �y�... � ��� '�'•� .•1�., ,. �+�• �}�. B�IId$ :}r.'���',�,�, r,. ?:;{�+ '�: Issued �::;f;:�.�,�. ,.,:: '�,.;,,' .'y.•.� r � .,:... :��...�,'...•, Agency 20- '•',••s,�� `��1.�..'t.`� 1k�'� s• . . . •.r••. . ���•::t. ::�:.�•. ' = ••L�� : \:.1 .��4,::�.� k1 L':'�L�`�{k• .�ti:�{� .��iY�1 ��i�� 15 ,•���• .. ,: �:�:: . •;.�.rr .<. , }:+,.v. ..., _ �.1{y \•. 1 • � •� 11��L��� � ��� •1�•�4 � ::: �� •}:.�� 1 O ; ti„ M1lL�f • �•�� r.,^.,.,'�,o •.h{•. i •�.y�.���♦ � r .h"' • y� ���i • �L1 .�i •�k;'�'�'�. - `�t���:'. :•:.•.•.•. ��:��.:• .. .. �L'::i;�•� ,v 5 �:;nr r j:•:��� :ti I - _ :::: ::::::::: 0 _ ::::::::: 1 - 5 City of _ � St. Peul = Debt Service 10 (Ooes not intlude - 1 debt sR���e of - the county, school district, or metro �� agencies) 3.477 4.165 4,579 6.332 7.181 7.737 9.552 1Q.340 11.924 13.269 14.389 • 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 9974 1975 1976 1977 � 9 � � 3.0 GUIDANCE: UNDERLYING RATIONALE AND POLICIES FOR � CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN SAINT PAUL � This section describes the underlying rationale which will guide capital expenditures during 1979, 1980 and � 1981 in Saint Paul . This chapter assumes that capital expenditures � for identified critical needs relating to basic pro- tection of heal�h and life and provision of public safety take precedence over other capital expenditures. Once those critical needs have been identified and met , as appropriate, capital allocation decisions may be directed at achieving other goals according to the rationale described below. The rationale has an , IMPROUEMENT ACTIVITY component and a GEOGRAPHIC compo- nent. These form the basis for policies. , 3. I P E EN C t. au s capita expen �ture rationa e as two asic COMPONENTS: STRONG STABLE objectives: improvement of neighborhoods and improve- NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRONG . ment of the city's economic base. The desire is to ' LOCAL ECONOMY choose capital expenditures which contribute to better neighborhoods and to strengthening of the economic base. , Neighborhood and economic improvement are two fundamental goals adopted by City Council and supported by the Mayor. In April , 1977, City Council adopted "Policies for 1 Evaluating 1978 Capital Expenditure Proposals" (St. Paul City Planning: April , 1977).* The document contained two goal statements to guide capital expenditure decisions : � 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. These two goals were reiterated by Mayor Latimer in his "Agenda for a Future St. Paul ."** The city has other , goals, of course, but these are the two that are most affected by capital expenditur� decisions. 1 � *For information about this document, call the Division of Planning, Mr. Gregory Haupt, 298-4510 . **In his Agenda for a Future St. Pau�", (Mayor's Office• September, 1977) Mayor Latimer specified objectives to be achieved in four goal areas : � City Finance, Economic Development, Government Effectiveness and Better Neighborhoods. i ,, t � � 3.2 GEOGRAPHICAL COMPONENT: most� any area of St. Paul could benefit from capital � WHICH NEIGHBORHOODS? allocations in support of these two goals or activities. And, despite the length and diversity of the capital ' fund sources listed in Figure 2, there is not enough money to do everything, everywhere. Part of the capital ,expenditure rationale, then, has to � help make decisions on WHERE neighborhood improvement and economic development support will be focused. Two simple, basic principles are taken as the starting � point in addressing this question. First, capital expenditures should be channeled to those , areas where there is good opportunity for effecting measurable neighborhood and/or economic improvement. Secondly, some capital funds should be used to pre- ' vent deteri.oration and blight in sound areas of the city. , 3. . H USING CONDITION INCO E M P ' The greatest opportunity for neighborhood improvement may be found in two kinds of areas : 1 ."Fringe areas" where housing is fundamentally sound and , some private resources are available, but where reinvest- • ment in the houses (maintenance, remodeling, repair) is , not suffi,cient to preserve them. Opportunity for improvement is present in these areas because relatively small governmental "pushes" will stimulate reinvestment. ' 2.Certain deteriorated areas where housing is badly run down but is substantial . In these areas a climate has to be created which makes people willing to purchase and ' rehabilitate worthwhile houses in an uncertain neighbor- hood. Other geographical areas do not represent similar oppor- ( tunities for improvement because they are either sound, or, if deteriorated, would require extensive acquisition, � clearance and redevelopment before they could be made attractive for investment. i 1 �� 1 12 ' --�-- ..,,,,.,.,,. �----� - ----_ ..--� --� 1 � � 30A 306 � �� � � 307.01 30Z 02 307 1 , 303 305 ','.�' . � . , . . , .. , . ` S .. _ •>: " ` 302 .::. � . , ;.: .::: ,. �y.� I , ::. � , / �...i Y __�� f'''}t:t:}t:t .:fa{�:b'':Y 1 . . •I _— _____.—_.__i ' :�309.; �i���i,��,3�,R:": y I- �I 319 r, ...- :'.: :•> ,, ,3;f� � S�••: I 318.02; ;314'•�::••. :.,,�� .;.I 'I .�ii<� t.�:.. i..�.: � '>}�r,'�,.�r,�"'••.'•� >:S. •.:Y.:.,; 1 — ^3.�Q..: ~,. �.,��'::�: 3 \-, �.4�:;:p..:A, . • , •>:... ��-- i'�. � �''��i�'� i'i�#�i�. j... — � .�' ' - .• :::. ,.:;:•::•>:> ,.,,�. ....:,.:�:::::.. 332 - 329 ..... ; 3 , �•. ................. ...... �:i�>:,�6 346 347 � .,., 336 . . . I ' :'•'��,',.,'�,�,.?r'. 37. 344._ �r' 348 Y+ 342 ,,,.. �i�a3b�:�:�:•.'`•':. i � ���'349��� 's::�i: � 352 353i��'. 356,. .;:��J.��� 351 357 ";�`:� � --- y•r r :';'360 ^�• 361 . �.,.. � •. .t z•, 3� � �!�'� 362 363 36a ; '''J�S - �;g ` �66 %� �� , i xi}� 7 � ��.. ��� 361 �r.,� � �'�� ,.�•< 374 \� i -- - � m�=�}�� � , 37g ��.�. •��67 CE�JSUS TRACTS � ,� 1970 � ��s.o, � ' s�s.o2 FIGURE 5: HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP ESTIMATED 1977 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OF EACH CENSUS TRACT AS PERCENTAGE OF �_ , ESTIMATED 1977 SMSA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME* � ��M,,,,F, IMPROVEMENT I &.II ' A � T 64� B . .,:. 65-79� , C � � 80q IMPROVEMENT III ' :::: < 79% � � � ? 80� , *The income cla�sification used in this figure corresponds w�ith data which is acceptable to HUD for determining eligibility for CDBG funding. ' As ot Mar�ch 6, 1978, the modified methodology for ident�.fying eligible tracts was being rev�ewed by HUD. Until final approval_ is giverl, it is possible that changes in the map and accompanying explanatory Gext may be required. , 1 13 � � � � The housing condition/income map on page 13 combines two � types of information: housing conditions from the "Residential Improvement Strategy" (RIS)* and the estimated 1977 median income for each census tract. Improvement I, � Improvement II and Improvement .III areas, three of the five RIS classifications, are used in the map.** In Improvement I and II areas, most of the housing can be � saved. Overlaying census income data on Improvement I and II areas defines fringe areas because it helps identify the level of private resources (personal income) available � for home improvement. Looking at the map, Improvement I and II areas are labeled � "A" , "B" , and "C" , based on a comparison of the median income for. each census tract with the median income of the � � metropolitan area as a whole. � Areas where the median family income is 64� or less of the metropolitan area median income are labeled "A". These areas are likely to require assistance if the housing is , to be improved and preserved because the availability of resources in the form of personal income is limited. "B" areas, where the median family income is from 65% to 80q ' of the metropolitan area median income, require smaller "pushes" in the form of assistance to improve, preserve and stablize the neighborhood. "A" areas and "B" areas ' are the fringe areas described earlier. Areas labeled "C", where the median family income is 80q or more of the metropolitan area median family income, � should require minimal subsidy assistance for reinvest- ment to occur. *The "Residential Improvement Strategy" was adopted by the Planning Commission on , February 11 , 1977, and subsequently by the St. Paul City Council , as an amendment to St. Paul 's Comprehensive Plan. � It describes housing conditions in the city and actions to be taken to improve housing. For information, call the Division of Planning, Mr. Ken Ford, 298-4507. **The designation "Improvement" indicates that� some of the housing in such an area ' evidences some deterioration and needs improvement. , Improvement I areas are least deteriorated. ,Appropriate � treatment would include a combination of increased main- tenance and rehabilitation. In Improvement II areas, the treatment would have to be more intensive and include some spot clearance of very deteriorated structures. In � the Improvement III category, 40% or more of the structures need major repairs. Clearance and replacement of existing housing will be required in some cases. � in ' ' � The map does no� tell us which areas fall into the second category, housing which is deteriorated but substantial . ' Since these structures are defined as badly deteriora�ed, they will usually be located in one of the three Improve- ment areas. However, the RIS map does not differentiate ' between Improvement areas characterized by houses which are substantial and areas where the houses would not be attractive to people willing to risk an uncertain neigh- borhood for a worthwhile house. � For example, Improvement III areas are indicated separate- ly on the map. In the majority of cases, Improvement III 1 areas are accompanied by median incomes below 80� of the median income for the metropolitan area. This combination of many badly deteriorated houses and lower incomes means � that any efforts to turn these neighborhodds around would require significant assistance. However, the map does not indicate which areas may require extensive replacement of existing housing and which could be turned around without ' widespread acquisition, clearance and redevelopment because �he ho�ses are substantial enough to be worth the risk of private investment. , The assumption behind this rationale is that private re- habilitation capital and sweat equity will npt be invested ' in structures which never were of high quality. These private resources are much more likely to be channeled into structures whose original ma�erials, workmanship, desi�n (and size in some cases) , lessen tt�e risk af ' investing money, time and effort. � Given this rationale and information, a logical policy to � follow in capital allocation would be to use capital funds to stabilize fringe areas, areas "A" , "B", and to a lesser extent, "C" , and to promote turn-around in neighborhoods � where the housing is deteriorated but substantial . , , � � � 15 ' � � 3. NE GH RH D T is po icy approach seems reasona e. However, it � IMPROV�MENT ACTIVITY raises the question, what kind of capital allocations will help secure fringe areas and promote turn-around in neighborhoods of deteriorated but substantial housing? � Figure 6 on page 17 shows the types of capital projects which could be funded by the Cit of St. Paul . They fall into three broad categories: (1� service system improve- � ments; (2) system support improvements; and (3) subsidy. Figure 6 is useful because it helps separate projects , which are directed toward neighborhoods and individual residences from those that serve broader needs. Category 1 , service s.ystems , has been further divided to ' reflect the similarity of groups of improvements. Capital improvements in the service systems above the � dotted line can serve residences directly at the individual address. On a larger scale, they can also serve neigh- borhoods. For example, improvements to a major , thoroughfare are of general benefit to large areas. How- ever, paving residential streets is of principal benefit to the fronting home owners. Capital improvements to the systems below the dotted line ' seldom, if ever, benefit individual residences directly. At the smallest scale, they benefit neighborhoods. ' Library branches, parks, multi-service centers, police team stations all fall in this category. They are capital improvements which do not affect individual � residences directly. The second category, system support, lists no capital improvement projects which affect neighborhoods � or residences directly. Their principal impact is on a department's ability to efficiently deliver the services it provides. , Category 3, the subsidy category, is virtually always directed to the individual residence or structure. Loans � and grants for residential and commercial rehabilitation are made for specific structures. Acquisition and clearance share this characteristic. We speak of rehabili- tating neighborhoods, and cities have, in fact, acquired � and cleared whole neighborhoods, but the impact of these actions is nonetheless at the level of the individual structure. � � 16 , ' i . FIGURE 6: TYPICAL MUNICIPAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 1 . 1. Service Systems , Water System: Transportation System Waste System Supply/Removal Roads Sanitary Sewers* Supply Distribution , Bridges Solid Waste Facilities Storm Sewers* Curbing Recycling Facilities Ponds Sidewalk , Lighting Signals Signage ' Skyways Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' Leisure/Education/ Sa• fety Culture/Environment Social Care ' Police Stations Parks Multi-Service Fire Stations Parkways Centers ' Playgrounds Day Care Centers Recreation Centers Shelters/Half-way Libraries Houses Cultural Centers/ Health Centers ' Museums Trees Special Use Facilities , 2. System Support , Headquarters and Repair/Maintenance storage Facilities Administration Facilities Facilities , Training/Educational Data Processing Communications Facilities Facilities Facilities ' . 3. Subsidy ' Loans Grants Acquisition/ Clearance � 1 *Combined sewers overlap both systems . 17 ' , � 3.3. THE RIGHT CAPITAL ALLOCATION TO EACH YPE OF ARE ` In fringe areas,where the desire is to stimulate private investment in the housing stock to ensure its preserva- , tion, the best use of capital would be for maintenance and rehabilitation loans and grants. The best use of capital in fringe areas is probably not for out-of-the ordinary improvements to service systems. This is because � the lack of adequate investment in the housing stock is probably not related to levels of municipal capital ex- penditure for capital improvements to service systems. , Consequently, increasing expenditure for capital improve- ments to service systems brings no assurance that owners will invest in their houses. , Where inadequate investment in b�uses CAN be demonstra�ed to be partially caused by too low a level of . municipal capital expenditure in service systems, that ' should be remedied. In fact, that is one of two situations when more than ordinary municipal capital in- vestment is a good idea. ' It can be stated this way: Allocation of capital to fringe areas should be for capital maintenance loans , and grants (and for normal life-cycle replacement of existing service system components) . Under two conditions, capital allocation to fringe areas should be different: l .When particular components of the transportation, waste � and water service systems can be documented to be so deteriorated or inadequate that investment in housing ' is discouraged; and 2.When specific improvements to any of the service systems ' have been made contingent upon achieving a specified level of residential improvement in an area. Under these guidelines, the strategy for areas identified , on the Housing Condition/Income Map as "A" and "B" areas should be to emphasize capital maintenance and rehabili- tation loans and grants. Since areas identified on the � maps as "A" have lower average incomes, a greater reliance on grants would be expected. In "B" areas, loans would be most emphasized. � � � ' � � � In areas of deteriorat�d but substantial housing, the challenge is more complex. Under conditions of short ' housing supply, high energy costs and high construction costs, these areas are potentially attractive and will experience significant change if private investment can ' be attracted. However, attracting private investment will require concentrated use of municipal capital : 1 .An adequate level of rehabilitation loans to assist , risk ta�Cers' investment in labor, time and money and to secure the$r commitment; , 2.Elimination vf b�ighting structures which cannot be re- habilitateda an� 3.Demonstration of municipal support by improvement to ' service systems. All of these steps are designed to reduce the risk for , people who mi�ht be willing to invest in the area if there is a community commitment to improve it and turn it around. While they are costly steps, the unattractive ' al��rna�ive is whqlesale acquisition and clearance of deteriorated neighborhoods. Unless private resources can be attra�ted and committed, the reversal of an area of deteriorated but subst�ntial housing cannot occur. ' Please note, however, that municipal non-capital expendi- turQs are also impor�ant to betterment of areas of � deteriorated but substantial housing. Assistance from buildin� in�p�ctor$, municipal action to assist in obtaining insurance for structures being rehabilitated, ' and action to improve school systems are also potentially important elements pf efforts to revitalize these neigh- borhoods. � However, there is a major stumbling block to effective policy and positive action with respect to the deteriorated but substantial category. As was mentioned before, data , which would precise1y identify areas of deteriorated but substantial housing do not exist. Furthermore, guidelines to assist in separating "substantial" from "non-sub- stantial" h�us�s +�o not exist. ' We ma be able to agree on things that should be considered, Y such as quali�y of workmanship, quality of materials, ' amenities (fireplac�s, hardwood floors, window design, etc. ) , decorations and architectural interest. However, those elements of "substantiality" have not been assembled, , weighed and balanced to produce an indicator which would direc� municipal actions designed to target on deteriorated but subs�antia1 area$ and structures. As a result, policy must be more flexible than might otherwise be desirable. ' 19 . t t . � 3.4 STRONG, PREMISE ' STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS: Physical aspects of neighborhood strengthening and STATEMENT OF POLICY stabilization fundamentally mean an adequate and steady level of investment of time and money in individual , structures to maintain their integrity. This investment is the responsibility of the owners; the city has responsibility for an adequate level of investment in � transportatior�, waste and water service systems (see Figure 6, page 17 . ) Where owners are unable to meet their responsibility, municipal assistance through , � allocation of capital may be justified. PREMISE Municipal assistance to houses which have lacked � sufficient maintenance should go to areas where there is greatest opportunity for strengthening and stabiliza- tion of neighborhoods. These are the "A" and "B" areas ' shown in Figure 5 and areas of badly deteriorated but substantial housing. PREMISE�� � I The physical character of some areas can be completely reversed through "neighborhood revitalization." The ' . concept of "neighborhood revitalization" implies extra- ordinary allocation of public capital (in conjunction with other types of municipal services) as a means of � inducing and secur�ng private investment. POLICY CONCLUSIONS: • POLICY A ' IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR THE CITY TO TAKE NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ACTION AIMED SPECIFICALLY AT THOSE AREAS ' OF DETERIORATED HOUSING WITH GREATEST POTENTIAL FOR ATTRACTING PRIVATE REINVESTMENT. •POLICY B ' NEW,ALLOCATION OF SUBSIDY CAPITAL FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NfIGHBORH00D IMPROVEMENT SHOULD APPROACH THIS DISTRIBUTION: ' Approximate Recommended Area � of Total % of Subsidy ' Category Res. Blocks Capital "A", "B" , and 30� 70-75% , Improvement IIZ � All Other 70� 25-30q , �n � ' ' ' •POLICY C ' NEW SERVICE SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT SHOULD SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION (FOR EXAMPLE� ITA'S) . , FURTHERMORE, IN AREAS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CHOSEN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION, FIRST PRIORITY FOR SERVICE � SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE FOR AREAS WHERE POOR CONDITION OF SERVICE SYSTEMS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE DEPRESSING RESALE VALUE OF PRQPERTY OR DETERRING MAIN- � TENANC� �NyESTMENT BY OWNERS. .5 EC u ic mun c pa econom c eve opment activities in ' DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY St. Paul consist of a wide range of activities and incen- tives. They include: (1 ) public improvements to suppor�t development; (2) subsidy in the form of land acquisition or preparat�on, tax abatement, or special types of , financing assistance; and (3) use of municipal police powers, legislative authori�y, persuasive powers and technical assistance to neutralize stumbling blocks to , development. These economic development tools are used by two statu- , torily distinct entities, the City of St. Paul and the Port Authority of St. Paul , to achieve shared economic development ob�ectives. These objectives are set by the G1tY Council , which approves Port Authqrity bond issues ' and has two of its members on the Authority Board. Economic development actions of the Port Authority are overseen and coordinated with those of the city by the � Mayor through the Division of Economic Development of the Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED). In the past, the Port Authority has addressed itself , principa11y to industrial park development (with some exceptions, such as Authority financial assi�stance 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 � acted to take a somewhat larger role in downtown develop- — ment, � Expansion of the Port Authority's role in financing and implementing downtown redevelopment could be consistent with City Council economic development strategy and ob- jectives. Assuming that DPED would provide po1lcy uidancQ and planning, the Authority could undertake ' �1 ) to acqu�re, clear, and prepare land for which there was deYeloper commitment, and (2� �o generate capltal for ' development ef such land tf�rough sale of revenue bonds. 21 � ' . ' This would have two favorable aspects: (1 ) it would reduce the need for the city to acquire, clear, and ' prepare land with capital dollars generated through sale of general obligation bonds; and (2) it would permit the city to expand its economic development activities in ' areas other than downtown. Admittedly, certain types af projects in downtown would always need some level of initial general obligation , investment by the city to improve their redevelopment potential . Specifically, 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 shou1d be needed to main- tain reinvestment momentum. ' There are many ways in whach St. Paul 's economic develop- ment positjon copld be bettered. They can be reduced to ' improving St. Paul 's share of regional and national markets and St. Paul's share of production to meet the demands of those markets. This will result in jncreased ' jncome for cit,� res9dents through salaries and wages, through djv9dends from investments jn local producers, and through prof�ts from production. ' Specific steps to bring about these positive changes � include: a.Broadening the city's industrial base; b.Strengthening downtown as a retail , commercial , conven- � tion and residential center; c.Strengthening corrnnunity (outside of downtown) commer- cial and retail centers; and ' d.Promoting local neighborhoods' economic development opportunities. Those of the list which most directly relate to municipal ' capital allocation policies are b. , c. , and d. The appropriate division of responsibilities between the , Port Authority and the city would be to encourage the Port Authority to be primary implementation agency for a. , and to broaden its participation in downtown redevelop- ' ment so as to actively complement the city's ro1e in b. ; and for the city to be primary implementing agency for c. , and d. , while continuing its role in b. , but with , less general obligation bond investment. , � ' ' � The city, then, would be �in a position to devote in- creasing attention to economic development which � assists strengthening and stabilization of neighborhoods and revitalization or reuse of existing commercial areas. At the same time, use of city general obligation bond funds for economic development could be reduced. , This division of responsibility would have to recognize that: (1 ) overall economic development strategy would � need to be forged by City Council and followed by both city agencies and the Port Authority; and (2) some city financing tools (notably CIB bonding) not available to the Authority would have to be used as necessary for ' project preparation in downtown redevelopment. Also, tax increment financing and development district bonding could be pressed into service for funding proposals under , some circumstances. But Port Authority revenue bonding capability would provide most future funding for projects falling in category a. , and b. , above. , The preceding can be summarized with a statement of policy on economic development. , 3.6 S R NGER L C L ECONOMY: RE ISE STATEMENTS OF POLICY Large amounts of municipal capital have been spent in � St. Paul in the past decade to make basic preparations for reuse of large areas of land. Much of this capital has been generated in the form of general obligation bonds. The general obligation bonds have been issued by ' the city, the former Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the Port Authority, and the Civic Center Authority. It is the clty's intention to finance revitalization of , downtown with less reliance on general obligation bonds while pursuing other form s of public financing to leverage private funds. ' PREMISE Economic development strategy for St. Paul must carry commitment to a continuing level of downtown revitaliza- , tion. However, the city should geographically broaden its eeonom�c stimulation and development efforts to place gradual}y �ncreasing 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 cortanercial or retail areas. 1 ' ' 23 , ' � POLICY CONCLUSIONS: , •POLICY D � NEW ALLOGATTONS BY THE CITY OF ST, PAUL OF BOTH SUBSIDY CAPITAL AND CAPITAL FOR SERVICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD EMPHASIZE , COMPLEMENTING NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION AS FIRST CONSIDERATION. •POLICY E , SECONO CONSIDERATION FOR CITY CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE FOR OTHER COP�MERCIAL/RETAIL REUSE OR REVITALIZATION (INCLU- , DING D�WNTOWN). ' ' . S NGE , E Rea istica y, ot o t e c�ty s goa s or cap�ta STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS OR allocations must be pursued. St. Paul cannot afford to , STRONGER LOCAL ECONOMY? neglect its neighborhoods, nor can it forego economic development. They serve each other as the basis for continued excellence in quality of life for St. Paul � citizens. However, these goals of stronger, more stable neighbor- hoods and stronger local economy must be translated into , decisions about where and how available capital will be allocated. Underlying rationales and basic policy guidance have been ' expressed for allocating municipal capital to achieve improvements in neighborhoods and appropriate economic , development. Policy on allocation of capital between these two goals should also be addressed. However, the context of municipal capital allocation is ' broader than these two goals. It also includes capital allocation for system support improvements and for city- wide improvements to service systems. The latter are ' improvements which serve a substantial portion of the whole population or its needs. An example might be improvement to Como Zoo, or replacement of the Marshall ' Avenue Bridge. Given limited available capital , how much should go toward strengthening and stabilizing neighborhoods, how much ' toward economic improvement, how much toward system support improvements , and how much toward citywide service systems improvements? ' 24 , ' ' Answering the question is made more difficult by the fact that we can only make allocation decisions about uncom- ' mitted capital resources. In any given year, a goa�Tc deal o�t� decision-making on how capital is used took place in previous years when projects which requir�d more than one budget period to complete were undertaken. So, in ' talking about allocating capital , it must be remembered that we are operating at the margin with a relatively small amount of money. ' Nonetheless, some guidelines should be set. This at least assures, during each budget period, that the questions � about how capital is being allocated, and whether that allocation fits policy, are raised and answered. � In the adopted 1978 Capital Improvement Budget, for example, allocations (total , not just new) were made approximately as follows:* , FIGURE 7: 1978 CAPITAL Total 1978 Capital Improvement Budget: Approximately IMPROVEMENT BUDGET $45,000,000 BY CATEGORY % of 1978 � Category Total (Adjusted) Neighborhood Improvement 24� , Projects Benefitting Industrial , Institutional , and Commercial Activities 27� � Citywide 47% , Total (2% Rounding Error) 98% This information was part of the first attempt to analyze a St. Paul Capital Improvement Budget by categories of ' benefit. The categories are not quite the same as those proposed for policy direction for comang capital budgets. Nor does this analysis differentiate between new alloca- ' tions of capital and previous commitments. Despite these shortcomings, the information above provides insight into capital allocation. Because the sums involved were not ' only new allocations to new projects, but included closing or continuing previous commitments , the percentages are more representative of several years' capital allocation than would be new projects only. ' *Based on November 17, 1977 memo from James Bellus , Planning Administrator, to � Mayor George Latimer. A copy of the memo, without attachments, is included in the Appendix as Section 8.1 . ' 25 ' , The recedin can be sunnarized with a statement of policy ' P 9 on annual allocation of capital among categories of use. ' 3.8 CA ITAL PRE SE ALLOCATION CATEGORIES: In order to assure a reasonably balanced approach to ' STATEMENT OF POLICY meeting all types of capital needs annually, capital allocation policy should include a proposed distribution of annual capital resources in support of the following ' categories : 1 .Neighborhood Improvement; 2.Economic Development; � 3.Citywide Service Systems Improvement, and 4.Support System Improvement. POLICY CONCLUSIONS: ' •POLICY F ' IN ORDER TO ASSURE A BALANCED APPROACH TO ANNUAL CAPITAL ALLOCATIQN, ALLOCATIONS OF CAPITAL FOR NEW PROJECTS FOR 1979, 1980 AND 1981 SHOULD APPROACH THE FOLLOWING PRO- PORTIONS: � � of Total Category Available Neighborhood Improvement 25 - 35% ' Economic Development 20 - 30% Citywide Service , Systems Improvement 35 - 45� Support System Development 5 - 10� ' •POLICY G . ' FOR BUDGET YEARS 1979, 1980, 1981 , NOT MORE THAN 20% OF THE MONIES BUDGETED FOR NEW FUNDING COMMITMENTS SHOULD BE FOR PROi�ECTS LOCATED IN ANY ONE DISTRICT. , ' 1 , , 26 , 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ' ' � The previous section sets direction by outlining what St. Paul wants to accomplish with capital allocations. ' This section focuses more on what kinds of capital allo- cations the city will encourage during 1979-1981 . For example, because of the city's tight budget, it is , desirable to encourage capital improvements that do not ' have excessive operating and maintenance costs. For similar reasons, upgrading and rehabilitation of existing municipal facilities is preferred over building new or ' expanding facilities, when a choice exists. The following list of implementation and development ' policies is designed to assist prudent selection of capital improvements. •POLICY H ' THE FUNDING NEEDS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WHICH HAVE RECEIVED PREVIOUS BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR CON- STRUCTION PLAN, ACQUISITION AND/OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES � GENERALLY HAVE PRIORITY OVER NEW PROJECTS. •POLICY I WITHIN SERVICE SYSTEM CATEGORIES, REHABILITATION AND , REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES TAKE PRIORITY OVER EXPANSION OF THE SERVICE SYSTEM, EXCEPT WHERE ECONOMY OR EFFICIENCY FACTORS, OR PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, ' INDICATE THAT SUCH REHABILITATION OR REPLACEMENT IS INADVISABLE. ' •POLICY J GENERALLY, THE CITY WILL BUDGET ACQUISITION FUNDING FOR NEW PROJECTS DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: � A.Acquisition projects related to private assets (housing or economic development) . ' 1 .If the proposed reuse is in conformance with adopted city plans, and 2. If there is a responsible developer with financing � commitments in hand. B.Acquisition projects related to public assets. 1 . If right-of-way or easement for service systems ' are deemed necessary, or 2. If there are opportunities to complete park land assembly where parcels have been previously identified ' for conversion to park use when they become available, or 3. If opportunities for special grant funding exist. � ' 27 � ' •POLICY 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 other wor s, eac o ar the city provides for a par- ' ticular project should mean six capital dollars committed by the developer. For example, the city could 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 displacement) ' employment within St. Paul ; and c.Projects whose principal objective is resource conser- vation or the development of alternative energy sources. ' 2.RETURN ON INVESTMENT GUIDELINES: Normal return on investment is 12%. In other 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 development. 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 projects are given in 1 . , above. However, at a minimum the tax ield from a ro'ect � shou d cover the cost of an additional munici al serv�ces require . ' , 28 ' ' � � � ' •POLICY L TAX ABATEMENT IS DISCOURAGED AS A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE. � HOWEVER, IT MAY BE USED TO SUPPORT PROJECTS THAT EX- PLICITLY SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE. IF USED, ABATED VALUATION IN ANY YEAR OF THE ABATEMENT PERIOD MUST NOT � BE LOWER THAN THE VALUATION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THE PROJECT IS STARTED INCREASED AT A 6� RATE COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY OVER THE TERM OF ABATEMENT. � •POLICY M (RESIDENTIAL ITA POLICY) • � " •POLICY N (COMMERCIAL ITA POLICY) � (Note: The City is reviewing the ITA concept as a means of neighborhood revitalization through a contract with the University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and � Regional Affairs (CURA). The CURA report is expected in February. Any recommendations which should be in- cluded in this document as policies will be added by amendment at a later date. ) � •POLICY 0 IF THE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER (DPM) IS IMPLEMENTED, $5 � TO $6 MILLION IN CITY CIB BOND FUNDS WILL BE APPROPRIATED AS MATCH FOR THE ESTIMATED $45 MILLION FEDERAL DPM GRANT. � •POLICY P DISEASED TREE REMOVAL AS A SPECIAL ALLOCATION WILL BE CONCLUDED WITH THE 1980 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. � REFORESTATION SHOULD CONTINUE AT AT LEAST A $1 MILLION ANNUAL LEVEL THROUGH THIS 1979-1981 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. ' POLICY Q NOT USED � � � � - � 29 �. 5.0 BUDGETING AND FINANCING POLICIES � � ' A third type of policy which affects capital allocation �� decisions is budget policy. The Budget Section of the Mayor's Office is responsible for fiscal planning associated with the Capital Improvement Budget and � Capital Improvement Program. Policies formulated by the Budget Section and adopted by City Council reflect fiscal constraints faced by the city. � As legislative body of the City of St. Paul , City Council has the final decjsion in budgeting municipal monies. � City Council bases its decisions regarding the Capital Improvement Budget on the combined impact of the following factors as they apply to each proposal : � 1 .Need for each project compared to other projects; , 2.Conformance with adopted city plans; 3.Conformance with adopted City Council policy; � 4.Concerns of the city department responsible for opera- ting or implementing the proposal ; S.Concerns of citizens who live in the area affected by � the proposal ; _ 6.The city's ability to fund the proposal ; 7.The city's ability to fund annual operation and main tenance of the proposed improvement; and � 8. Impact of the proposal on city revenues. In addition to these factors, City Council follows some � budget policies which apply to funding in general and policies which relate to specific kinds of funding. These policies are summarized below. � 5. GENERAL BUDGET P LICY R POLICIES GIVEN THE CITY'S FISCAL CONSTRAINTS, IT IS DESIRABLE TO � ALLOCATE MUNICIPAL CAPITAL TO PROJECTS IN 1979, 1980, AND 1981 WHICH WILL NOT RESULT IN A NET INCREASE IN CITY OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. AT A MINI- � MUM, THIS MEANS THAT: 1 .Essential facilities which can be financed and operated by the city and another unit of government will be given � a high priority if they can be constructed and operated at less cost than separate facil9ties; , 2.Generally, there will be no allocation of capital for purchase or construction of facilities for human service programs (as defined in Glossary) in 1979, 1980 and 1981 � and no CDBG monies will be appropriated to finance annual operation and maintenance of new human service programs in 1979, 1980 and 1981 . � 3.New swimning pools will not be considered for funding in 1979, 1980 and 1981 . 31 � . � . � •POLICY S � IN THE 1979-1981 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, THE CITY WILL ANNUALLY BUDGET FOR EACH PROJECT PHASE ONLY THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH CAN REASONABLY BE EXPEC- TED TO BE EXPENDED WITHIN THE BUDGET YEAR. THE CAPITAL � IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WILL IDENTIFY FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE FINANCING OF A PROJECT IN FUTURE YEARS. THIS TENT,ATIVE COMMITMENT IS SUBJECT TO ADOPTION BY CITY � COUNCIL OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE PROJECT. �POLICY T � DETERMINATION OF WHICH FUND SOURCE IS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR �INANCING 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 fund9ng primarily with monies allocated to the city specifically for those routes; 2.Capital improvements which are eligible for metropoli- � tan, state or federal programs or pr.ivate 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 recommended if City � ' Council has indicated its iAtention to utilize such authority; 4.Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG � funding will be so funded; and 5.Capital improvements which cannot be financed with � monies governed by paragraphs (1 ) through (4) will be considered for CIB bond funding. � � � � 32 � � � � • � . ND IN NCIN P LTCY n t is sect on are statements of City Counc s intent with respect to use of certain types of bond financing for the 1979 Capital Improvement Budget. The city has � authorizations thhough State statute to issue these types of bonds. Below is City Council policy on use of such authorizations to finance projects in the 1979 Capital Improvement Budget. � POLICY U1 •THE CITY MAY CONSIDER ISSUING UP TO $6,500,000 IN CIB � BONDS TN 1979. •POLICY U2 THE CITY MAY CONSIDER ISSUING WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT � BONDS IN 1979 TO FINANCE THE FIRST CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE THOMAS-DALE SEWER PROJECT. � •POLICY U3 THE CITY DOES NOT INTEND TO ISSUE TAX-�EVY SUPPORTED BONDS IN 1979 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL REHABILI- � TATION PROGRAMS, PARKING FACILITIES, OR URBAN RENEWAL. •POLICY U4 NO TAX INCREMENT BOND-FINANCED PROJECTS ARE PRESENTLY � PROPOSED. TF TAX INCREMENT BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS ARE ��pEVELOPED, THEY MUST MEET REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.3 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POLICY BEFORE CITY COUNCIL WILL � CONSIDER ISSUING BONDS. � ,� � � � � �' 33 � . � �, 5.3 TAX INCREMENT IC � FINANCING POLICY REVENUE PROJECTIONS BY CONSULTANT: Revenue projections for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by a private financial consultant rather than a bond consultant. •POLICY V2 � DEBT SERVICE FROM BONO SALE PROCEEDS: Debt service for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond pro- � , ceeds for no more than the first three years of project implementation when no tax increments or other project revenues are generated. .�POLICY V3 � OTHER COSTS FUNDED FROM BOND SALE PROCEEDS: All costs relating to any tax increment proposals should be funded with bond proceeds and included in the justification of each proposal . These costs include, but are not limited � to: design, acquisition and relocation, construction, bond consultant, financial consultant and staff time. � •POLICY V4 CONDITIONS TO BE FULEILLED FOR TAX INCREMENT BOND FINANCING: � 1 .There must be a clear statement of public purpose; 2.The prospective developer must have financing available; 3.There must be a written contract among the developer, the city and any involved public authorities. The � contract must identify, amang other things, estimates for all anticipated costs related to the development, esti- � mates for annual operating and maintenance costs asso- ciated with the completed project, and who is responsible for meeting each of these costs. •POLICY V5 � USE OF TAX INCREMENT BOND SALE PROCEED S IN ACCORDANCE WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT: Tax increment bond monies will be expended only in accordance with the terms identified �' in the written agreement, unless otherwise provided for by City Council resolution as recommended by the director � of the Department of Finance and Management Services. � � I T I N L N POLICY W1 PROGRAM FINANCING POLICY ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION: See Policy U3. � •POLICY W2 RECYCLING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST - REHABILITATION LOANS: � All monies used to provide residential or commercial rehabilitation loans shall be recycled for new loans as the original loans and interest are paid. 34 � � � APPENDICES � � ' � 6. PPEN IX C G: H D POLI IES IN ST. P UL � 7.0 APPENDI OL I CE EN N , . N � N � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � 35 � � 6.0 (APPENDIX) CDBG: HUD POLICIES IN ST. PAUL � ral Communit Develo ment Block Grant CDBG) funds Fede y p . � form a major part of St. Paul 's Capital Improvement Budget. � Although CDBG funds may be used for a variety of activi- ties, these activities must reflect Federal objectives and comply with regulations established by the U. S. � Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).* On the other hand, incorporation of CDBG funds into St. Paul 's CIB process stresses the importance the city � places on allocating all capital funds in a manner which - achieves maximum benefit for the city as a whole. This section presents the major thrust of the CDBG Program at � the Federal level and coordinates Federal regulations with St. Paul 's goals and policies for capital expenditure. � . FEDERAL C MMUNI Y e primary o �ective o t e e era ommun ty eve op- Q�V�LOPMFNT PROGRAM ment Program is the development of a viable urban OBJECTIVES comnunity. This includes decent housing, a suitable � living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, particularly for people with low or moderate incomes. Block grant funds are provided for activities which meet � , . the following, more specific objectives: 1 .Elimination of slums and blight and prevention of � deterioration and blighting influences which affect the community, and particularly which affect residents with low ar moderate incomes; � 2.Elimination of conditions which are detrimental to health, safety, and public welfare. � 3.Conservation and expansion of the nation's housing stock, particularly housing for people with low or moderate incomes; � 4.Expansion and improvement of community services, primarily for people with low or moderate incomes, which are essential for sound community development and a � viable urban community; � *Specific questions about the regulations should be directed to Mr. Robert Kessler, Community Development Division, Department of Planning and Economic Development, 366 City Hall , 298,5586 � � � 37 � � � S.More rational utilization of land and natural resources � and better arrangement of land uses; 6.Reduced isolation of income groups within communities � and geographical areas, increased diversity and vitality of neighborhoods through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for people with lower incomes, and � revitalization of deteriorated neigha0rhoods to attract people with higher incomes; 7.Restoration and preservation of properties with special � historic, architectural or aesthetic value; and - , 8.Alleviation of physical and economic distress through � the stimulation of private investment and community revitalization in areas with population outmigration or a stagnating or declining tax base. � --- . EDERAL C MMUNI Y A variety of activities are e igib e for CDBG unds, • ° DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT including planning, urban environmental design, environ- � PROGRAM REGULATIONS mental review and administrative costs required to develop and implement the program. The Capital Improve- ment Budgeting process does not relate to these � administrative and planning costs, but rather to the specific projects which are funded on a yearly basis. The HUD regulations list the activities which are eligible � for CDBG funding (see Section 6.3. ) However, inclusion of an activity on the list does not automatically render it eligible for funding. Each specific proposal must meet � all of the regulations, including many which are related to other major Federal policies, such as nondiscrimination, environmental protection, labor standards, historic � preservation, and the like. Furthermore, the set of activities submitted to HUD by � St. Paul must reflect a coordinated approach toward meeting St. Paul 's community development needs. This means that St. Paul 's application for funds is reviewed on two levels. Not only is the eligibility of each specific project re- viewed, but the entire application is evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the basic statutory objectives of the CDBG program. � The Housing and Comnunity Development Act and the regula- tions established by HUD to support its intent allows some discretion in selecting the types of projects to be � funded. However, both the legislation and the regulations make it clear that the primary purpose of the program is to increase the availability of funds for physical � development activities which benefit people with low and moderate incomes. � 38 � � � . HUD is also encouraging cities to use block grant funds � in a coordinated manner by focusing resources in specific geographical areas instead of funding a number of inde- pendent projects scattered throughout the corrnnunity. The � policies which support a concentrated use of block grant funds also encourage cities to use other Federal , State and local resources to the areas chosen for revitaliza- � tion so that there can be significant improvement in the areas. The following sections present these major policies and � supporting criteria in relationship to St. Paul 's goals and policies for capital expenditurE. � P LICY HUD- ALL PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES MUST EITNER PRINCIPALLY BENEFIT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PERSONS, OR AID IN THE � PREVENTION OR ELIMINATION OF SLUMS AND BLIGHT, OR MEET OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS HAVING A PARTICULAR URGENCY. � � The primary focus of the CDBG Program is meeting the needs of low and moderate income persons. Annual appli- cations and the three-year community development and � housing plan are assumed to meet this objective if 75% of the funds benefit low and moderate income persons. Hawever, funds used for planning and administration � activities and repayment of federal loans are excluded, Applications and plans which do not meet this criteria may also be acceptable. However, they will be reviewed . by HUD to assure that the proposed activities are � appropriate given the nature and severity of the needs of low and moderate income persons. � A project contributes toward meeting this objective if it is designed to meet the needs of low and moderate income persons identified in the three-year community develop- � ment plan. In addition, it must be located in an area where more than 50q of the residents have low or moderate incomes. Projects which are not located in such areas are also acceptable if they have income eligibility � requirements that limit the beneficiaries to people with low and moderate incomes. � Figure 8 on page 40 indicates the census tracts where more than 50% of the residents are low or moderate income. The income classification used is based on data and procedures which must be approved by HUD. Figure 9, als� � on page 4Q, indicates the percentage of minority popu- �ation within each census tract. � 39 � F I GU RE 8: ::;::::::>��:� CENSUS TRACTS WITH ESTIMATED `:'�: :��<:`:'::::: '�` � ����":::: �ob .::. :Y: :::. :•• �::::•••. 30701 307.02 � 303 ::::;�°Y,:;:};:;: 1977 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME ��`��������'"� � 302 i}:':�:�:(���:�:�:i�i:'�::�:� 31I . }::�::;:�::;:$$�4}:;:$J':.. 309 3i0 E E TI- LES S THA N 80� 0 F TH S ............ .... .... .. .... . .... ::::��`��:::::::�':::::�::::>:`:�::::::: .>:::>:::�:::::::::::::::::.:::<::>:�:::::::::>::;:::>:::: :•�ti•:.titi:::,.ti.::•::•:?•:•.ti•:•:}:•::•::'. . ..... .......... .....�P.':::•Jf. ::::.... �e o� �:�:::::,`,�,t�::�::;:�':::.... ...:•: ':::.:;�:�:2�:��:�:�:«:::•''•;:::::�:�.`•:�:��jij::;:;:�';;;';'��'•::::�:t•:::;;;.;•: ;•::.3tr::: MATED SMSA MEDIAN FAMILY ...,:.::�.:::::::.:::....... .::. ::,,�.::;:. :.: :;:: 3eO1 I ���..�' 322 ::}:::i:�:��:�: . �'�'•i:•}:•'r:•}:• ' ... . ....::..��., ..a... � ';•.•........:::::.•::::::::::... .. ::•• :::::::::. INCOME 3z � ]23 •'� 33i - ..;;A2if::ciixt?:i ::yii::�:ii;,;;.::�i;::::. :�'�:'i�At;:i%:::•.;'�'>i;.;.:;;.i;i, •::.7PD:x; �:�:��2R:�>:�::�:�:�i:�i::�:�::�:::;: :;: .y� �. 3a5 346 347 �:�: 3i7 :i'FR•i:•�•.•;.,��'ii'�,:;.C;.:•){::::?: ......y;4i.�::. ...... . '::{}�,��,�,:+?:i;i: :,�,�,•,.. ::::�Y.i'•. •....... 333:•;: '::::��:��:�:�'r:{}:�:�:{�...:��...�..�......�.:.. ::.��::{.}:�:�'l:::>�!R:•i:: 'r ;:}:�:Z?�4:��{{{:':'.'.'>:•}:;::}:}:;:;;;, 3VB . . .. . . •�.:�'... . �. :: .:•:::�: �sx:�:•�::���::''�:;�::::;::::��>.;. aso�:.� ::;:.�4::::::`�'� ::;�::�'::;::;;:: 349 352 353 :'r'r:�:�:�:�:�i:��'Y��� ::':::;{:;{i�$:•.. •: ...... ::�::�>::�j:��......... 351 •..357 +� I :�:�'Y4:'••••,.'' 3 74 �•kti��:}:titi••}}'•'�•}•+ti��':'::.>'Y•••.i ;.��:;'.:;;:$:'�� ..�::::::::::::::• � 362 363 364 365 368 ::: :':'i:;:}i,�'':}C:::}::'':+; :'::�:.::�77:i;?}::;:;3',hi,:j:::}Yii.,'�i7i'rk;: 366 ''..,�',.',. 36] �375 576.01 :}°,`�,,�C;:�'r: � � � FIGURE 9: PERCENTAGE OF MINORITY POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT .,,.,,., - -- ---- — - --------- � - --- - � 38q 1 � 306 � � . � 301 � 30 3 O � 307.01 Y 307.02 q � k�� f � 302 � ,2 3 311 ' -- 308 Og 310 � j � 2 .. �� : w ��� 5 � ' ' �-' � 319 312 ..°�� "4" 4 ' ` 5 � 317 � 2 318.02 ; ^2•u 3 �„„ o, 313 315 ,^318.01 � �, ,a,,,.,. , ., 320 ' 321 p� ` , -�2 ., .. ..�w,E, 322 32 2 s2a 46 �3 a� 6- 4, - -- ------- � 332 ��� 327 10 ,�9 330 � � � 2 .,4 325 _ ,.. „,•,> • 328 ` +� 345 346 347 � " 3 ]6 335 36 32 4 ; , 334 337 344 � 348 2 333 `."" �n -- — — 8�38 §7439 e 9�'9" 342 __ „r., 3� 2 350 2 6 ^354 � 355 E 9 352 �53 3 56 ? 6358 P359 rJ 351 4 357 1� Jr 61 � � 36� ��. 1 � 3 =3 � 369 371 � i 1 362 363 . 364 •� 365 , � � 368 W 6 - �7\ / �, - 366 - / 370 372 \ / 374 \ - , ._ �, � , , . . . . . . - . . . . . � . . . . . . a,.•^ .�` , . 361 � �..,ro�., ,� . � . . � . .. ,,,�„ _ � .....o,�, � � �------ ---- �____ � �- --- � — --- ., �� �� � � 3�5 367 CENSUS TRACTS ��� �� / 1970 �� , ?,1 � � c�l � 376.01 / �1 6 ' s�s.o2 � Z� � �\ _ -- � � � �� ��_ , 40 �411 � � 1 �� � � CDBG funds may also be used to eliminate or prevent slums � and blight and to meet urgent needs. "Projects which eliminate slums and blight" are limited to: (1 ) con- centrated areas which meet state or local definitions of � slums, blight, deteriorating or deteriorated and where a comprehensive program can be undertaken; (2) completion of urban renewal projects; and (3) elimination of � scattered conditions of blight through acquisition, demo- lition, historic preservation, and relocation. "Urgent needs" are limited to problems which pose an j immediate and serious threat to the health or welfare of St. Paul 's residents. Such problems must be of recent origin (within the past 18 months) and there must be no � other source of funds available to address the need. St. Paul 's policies for capital expenditure are basically � consistent with these requirements. The rationale in Section 3.0 recognizes that the distribution of income plays a role in determining where capital expenditures � ' may have the most impact. H - APPLICANTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO DESIGNATE APPROPRIATE AREAS � IN WHICH VARIOUS PROGRAMS CAN BE CARRIED OUT IN A COORDINATED AND CONCENTRATED MANNER. � The term "neighborhood strategy area" is used throughout the CDBG regulations to indicate a coordinated program which focuses on specific residential areas characterized by blight. Although there are no limits placed on the , size of these areas, the regulations specify that the resources devoted to each area must be sufficient to produce substantial long-term improvements in the area � within a reasonable period of time. The improvements to the area must be carried out in accordance with a plan which identifies and coordinates all proposed activities � including physical development, public provision of facilities and/or services, private investment and citizen self-help activities. � HUD also allows flexibility in the proportion of total - CDBG resources used for concentrated areas. However, certain activities can only take place in areas where � CDBG funds are being used in a concentrated manner. Furthermore, other HUD programs are designed to focus on areas of concentrated community development activity. � � 41 � . � � A major example of this are the Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation Special Procedures. This program is � designed to provide cities directly with an allocation of housing assistance funds to administer, particularly to stimulate rehabilitation of rental properties. In � order to compete for these funds, a raunicipality must designate a specific neighborhood strategy area and use the funds within its boundaries. The proposal must be � consistent with the city's Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) and other relevant plans and policies. Furthermore, the proposal must identify and provide for other improvements , required in the area and present a plan for completing � these activities within five years. HUD anticipates that a major funding source for related improvements will be CDBG funds. � St. Paul ha� recognized the potential benefits of a coordinated and concentrated approach to neighborhood � revitalization for some time. Designation of Identified Treatment Areas (ITA's) is a reflection of that recog- nition. In addition, the policies set forth in Section 3.0 are based on focused neighborhood revitalization efforts. �- Although St. Paul has been implementing the concept of � neighborhood revitalization through ITA's , two factors may bring about some changes in the city's approach. First, it is possible that a greater proportion of St. Paul 's capital expenditures, particularly its CDBG � funds , will be spent in ITA's or similar areas. Secondly, depending on the final results of the city's evaluation of past ITA activities, ITA policy may emphasize some- � what larger areas and scheduling improvements over a longer period of time. POLICY HUO-3 � APPLICANTS MUST HAVE A THREE-YEAR PLAN FOR THE USE OF BLOCK GRANT FUNDS WHICH DEMONSTRATES A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR MEETING IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � AND HOUSING NEEDS. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 requires � that a three-year Community Development Plan accompany St. Paul 's Year V (1979) application and that St. Paul 's 1979, 1980 and 1981 applications be based on the plan. � The plan must identify St. Paul 's major community develop- ment and housing needs, particularly for low and moderate income persons, and establish a strategy for meeting these needs over the three-year period 1979 through 1981 . The � plan must also identify the types of activities which will be funded with CDBG funds during that period. 42 � ! � � � As stated in Section 3.0 of this document, two of � St. Paul 's major goals are strengthening and stabilizing its neighborhoods and strengthening its economic base. The resulting policy statements and the rationale which � leads to the policies refine these two broad goals. They also serve to establish a strategy so that capital expend- iture decisions will be oriented toward meeting needs � efficiently and effectively. The policies and underlying rationales are also the base for St. Paul 's three-year Community Development Block , Grant program. Recommendations for program content will be solicited from neighborhood organizations, community groups, city operating depart�ments, and other public and � private agencies through the processes for development of a Capital Improvement Program and Budget. The choice of projects and activities to be recommended � to City Council for funding and programming will be gu9ded by: � 1 .Their relationship to the policies in this document; 2.Any plans which relate to the specific activity; and 3.Their eligibility for CDBG funds given the objectives � and regulations of the program. � � � . � � � �. � � , 43 ' '6.3 ELIGIBLE CDBG ACTIVITIES � . . RUIEt AND REOULATIONf 8439 � vWons tor lntetim wtstance under b. Excludina the �nstructlon of b70.sos 1EU�lble pl�nnfn�and url,an deal�n � � �'�rr+�Crafph (c) ot �874.207 hae been L1es��8 poole as recreatlonsl taclll- s�o.�Elt�lble adminlatntive cwta. revised to provide several exacnples of 8.Excluding the eonstructlon of blke a70.2o7 Inettgtble acuv�tter. the types of malntenance rnd repalr patha, pedestrian malls, and other Aursoem:T1�le I, Houaln�ana Commu- � � ttems that sre excluded.In aome cases, publlc works authorized by the atat- nity Development Act of 10�4 c�2 U.S.C. a tine llne must be drawn between ute;snd 6�01,ec.ea.):Tltle I, Housln�and Commu- tnaintensnce and repair, and rehabill- 7. Permltt[nQ the nse of block �tar►t ti�y �velopment wct ot 1q77 cPub. L� Y6- tstion of facilities and lmprovemen4 to edminlster activttlea other thnc�aec- 128r, �nd sec. 7cd�. DeparGna�t of HowlnQ whlch are e1(Qible for essistance. Ac- tlon SlZ reh$bllltatlon loane end eec- u'd IIrbau Development ecc c�= U.B.C. � cordln�ly, several examDlea are cited; tton 810 Urban HomesteadinQ, whlch aa,a�d»' fi111n� potholea ln s street. which Is are not funded by the block arent pro- II. 8ubpart C, Eli¢ible Activlt,tes b repalr, Ls ineli�ible, whereas resurfac- gr�; revised to read as IoIIows: ipa •atreet is considered for the pur- A number ot commenta addreaeed :�����9����if�• poaea of the block arant pro�rsm to be departmental relocatlon pollclea. � iionib s��i�i�mowiin°��ara�a�=e- �'� CO°��� were Qenerally rel• f 67oso0 GEnenl pouek�. evant to other subparb ot Lhe re�ula- �a) Determinattoru ql eltpibUity. creation ueas ia maintenance and le tions asid do not relate to the prnvt- teullglble, but us1nQ block �rsnt funds slona of tnis aubpart on the baafc ell�f- Thle aubpart aeta forth the varlety of � W sdd new eauipment tn a recreatlon bility of paymeats and�saietence. ellglble activitfea thst msy be under- area would be s percnitted activfty. Several comments suQBested Wut �en wlth �salstance under thls Part Il�DQSTR�AL PARKb �hool distrtcte, local housln�authorl- �block grant funda) to meet comr�uni- tiea, and other public bodles be sdded ty development and houain�needs and Para�raph cf)of�670.207 of the pra to the list of entlties under ;670.Z04. n�O����p��DWy tor low-and mod- � posed reQUlaWona h�a been deleted ae, Thls could not be accommodsted be- erete-income pereone or for the pre- t result ot commenta. Althou�h HUD cauae the statutory suthorlty b llmit- ventlon or elimination of slums eu�d 1s deletina Lh1s para�raDh becsuse the ed to prfvate entttiea. bllaht. The WL1nQ of certalu ellafble teat of firm comraltments eeerna overly Beveral commenta were concerned types of scWvlties in thle aubpart doea burdensome, applicanta nonethelese about the coordinatlon ot bloct Qrant not by itselt, however, render specitic � sY�ould cxerclse �udeement tn usJnit funded economle development activl- �Clvitfea,prapaeed to be conducted by block Qrant funds for »ctivitles to de• tles with the proQrama o[other Feder- !ndlvldual appllcanta,eligible for block velop an industrial park ahere firm al agenclea. HUD certaWy encourages �'ant aselatance. There are other re- commltments are not t►vailable. Whtle spplicants to coordlnate thelr activl- Quirementa that muet alao be met to HUD doea not wish Lo deter tho�e un- tiea in such a manner aa Go beat uttlize pualtty a specific activtty for assis- � dertakings wlth the potential for suc- atl svatlable resources. but doea not �ce.M acWvlty raay De asslsted only cesa,HUD wiA uae the monitoring pra feel that the lmpoeltion of certatn spe- �n those inatancea ahere 1t complles cese to watch tor situat(ons where ac- cttic requirementa of other pra�rams wlth the elt�ibility crtteria ot thls aub- ttvltles are undertaken without com- would be of beneflt to either the blcek p°�'�th a11 ottier appllcable requlre- mttments from potential users and ate ���proQram.or other proQrams. ments of thls Part es they may spply � not attracted wlthin a reasonable to WPllcanta under Subperta D, E, F. perlod ot time. � �T� W�RMATION: A Ftnding or Ci, such a8 those relstfnQ to equsl of InsppllcablUty with r�QaM to Envi- oDPOrtunity. and the baslc ststutory COMMENTS NOT AClLD UPOIi ronmentai Impsct hae been prepared obJecClves ot the block arant pro�ram. in accordance wlth HUD Handbook In particular, activltles conducted by The descriptlon of the chsnBes to 1390.1, and a Flndin� oi Inapplfcabil- entltlen�ent recipients under SubDart � Subpart C dlscussed a number ot com- ity with regard to economic and infla- D must comply wlth the requlrements ments which HUD was unable to act tionary ImDact hae been OrePared ln �t lorth tn Q 6?0.302 regsrding beneflt upon. In many cases, comments pro- �cordance with Executive Order � low- and moderate-income persona posed the lnclus(on or modlficulion of 11821 for Subpsrt C. Copies ot the or ellmination of slums nnd bllght,and � activlties not authorized by the statute �d�g$ �.e avaliable for tnapection �°�1 efty discretlonary reciplentg or the excluslon of activitles which . �d copying during buslneas hours 1n �UBt �°mply with slmllsr requlre- were speclifcally suthorized. Other ments set forth In Subpart F.Further, the Oftice of the Rulea Doctet Clerr, comments Droposed alternative direc- there must be compliance with all sp- tions on matters of Departmentsl Room 5Z18. Department oi Housing plicable environmental review and � and Urban Development. 4b1 8eventh policy which siter due considerstton, gtreet SW..WashlnQton,D.C.�M10. �e�� pfO�urea set forth in 24 were not accepted. Accordingly, 2� CP'fi Part b70 1s CFR Part b8. The following ere some of the cam- �ended by reviatnQ Lhe Table of Con- �b) Urban Development action ments already dlgcussed which HUD �nts for Subpart C and by revlaing ar°'nW Gre.nt assistanc pmay be pra did not agree to sct upon for the rea- vided with Urban Develo ment Actlon � eons set torth above: Subpart C es set forth below. ('}mnte pursuant to 8ubpart C3 for: 1. Permicing the uae of block grant I• The Table of Contenta to 24 CFR �1) Activitles eltgible for avsistance funds to construct new housina tor the p�t 570, $ubpart C, is revlsed 6o read pursuant to thls Subpert;snd handlcapped; as follows: • (2) 8uch other activltiea, Includln� 2. RequirinQ the concurrence ot at aew housing construction, se the Sec- � least 80 percent ot the residenta of an f"�O^�����'���N�" retary may determine to be conslstent area before initlattng the acqulsition Bec. with the statutory obJectivea of the of land; 670.200 C3eneral pollciee. Urban Development Action Qrant 3. DeletinQ or ltnpoetn� additional 670.201 Bea1c elleible activitla. (UDA(�) program ae provided for in requirements on the use of blcek fi7o.ao2 EllQible rehabllttatlon and preeer- �570.453. The provlslona oi ¢570.207 � Qrants for purchaBe o! exlsting hous- vatlon act,lvitiea. regarding inellgible activitles apply to ln� outside of an appllcant's bound- 670.203 Elieible eoonomtc develovment aa the UDAd program, except where an ttvitles. aries; 570.204 Eifglblc activltla by prlvnte non- ���vity 1s determined to be consistent 4.Requlring mandatory set asides of proftt encicle.e,nelQhborhood-baaed non• witkt the etatutory ob/ecLtves of the � a certsin percentsge ot block grant protit or¢anizettons, local development UDAt3 program pursuant to $570.453, funds for a vartety of Individual activi- corpora��ons,and 8ma11 Buainees InveaG Lhe lttnitetions set forih in ¢5T0.207 tlee,auch as pub11C aervicea; u►ent ComWwlea do not spply. fEDERAL RE�iIfTER, VOL 1�, N0. 41—WlDNEfOAY. MIARCH 1. 197� � , 44 � � gaqp RuLEf AND Rl011LATION� In makln�determinstfon�ot eU�lblllty phe�����ush it 4 to be located on• pro»srWa oamed and axupled by lo�►- with nesrd to OrDan Development �� �ntroDed .by s �chool dlstelc� and modente-lncome persons. Bloct � Action C�ranta. for the purpoeea of �hool board or simtlar body responst• �rant tunds teoovend throu�h speclal , i¢b?O.?01-207. the �erm "CommunlW y�e for Dubilc edup►tlon. t�he taatlfty aeewnienb suthorized by SUD afll Developme�it Pro�ram"as t�ted 1n thb �11 oNy be used by aay �acent be oonaidered D� lncoaae Dur�u• subpart shsll alao mean the "Drban �hool or educaWonnl facWty on an fa• ant to�670.60a. � Development AcWon Prosram." ddenw baais. In order to determine cs) S9ec[at naau�menti naid with (c) Model cittet activitles Notwith- *rhether the faclltty is to be wed on Dtock p�c.at Junda. Hlock Qrsnt funda standlna anYthinB to the contrary ln ��ncidentsl basis,the apDllcant shall may be used to psy epeclal assess- thls aubpart, any onBoinQ model citics at a minlmwn demonstrate tha� menta leWed agalnst propertles owned activity beln� c�crled out in t model (�) �►fter �chool houn and on week- and occuDled by low- and moderate- � cicie� proaram ahall be ell�ible ior ende,ttre fnctltty�hall be sv�ilable!or lncome peroons for the cspltal coete of fundlnB under this Part imm thst por- � by the Beneral Dubllc W the s�ne ellglble Dubllc facilitfes and lmprove- tlon of the hold-harmleas amount at- eztent ss stmilst f�cllities operatlnQ ments flnanced hom local revenue tributable W auch model cities D� �rlthin the sDDllcant's�urlsdlctlon;snd sources,other than block arant funds, aram until the oppllcant h�a received ���Dur(nQ school houn, the facllity whlch(f)sre described in the Cotnmu- � flve yean of tundla� tor such saWvl- V not uaed for �chonl purpwes for nity Development ProQram; (fi) are tieu �s calculsted pureusnt to more than four hours each day. lnlWsted sfter the effective date ot f 570.10�(cKSXW>. For the purpose of �e> Acttvttlu outifde an a�icant'i thls proviuion; and (!11) npreaent the this para�raph. the term"on�oin�ac- �undartu�. ADpllcanb may conduct pro rats ahare of the c�►pttsl coet ot tivlty"means snY model cities activlty ��vltiea whlch ue otherwlse ell�tble the e1lQible iacillty or improvement to � underaay as of January 1. 197b, that ror bloct �rant seelstance ouWds oi the benetlttln�DropertY. aaa approved and funded by HUD on thelr boundaries which are not fiuwn- (a) Consultant Activitte�. Applicants or betore June 80. 1�74. IIpon explra- siatent with State or local la�v •and mey employ conaultsnts to provlde tion of the e1lQlbillty ot acttvitiea which are nob plainly inaDproprlste to Drofeeslonal asslstance 1n proaram under thls para�raDh. applicanta p�eet ldentifled needs ot the sppUcan� planning, sppllcstion prepsrstion, and � should refer to the other requtrements ���ay Include an urban county car- other general Drofesetonal guldance oi thb subpart which must be satlefied ryin� out otherarise eUQlble actfvltles relstin� to proaram executlon. The in order for bloct �rant a9sistance to �thin a metropolttan aity wtth block use of consultsnte !s �overned by the continue to b�e psovided foe model �t ��tance where the acWvitiea folloarin�: ettles activiWes. • are not Dlatnly lnappmprlate to mee� <1) Proprom nQutnmenta, includin8 � (dl Syectal poltciea �overnia0laaul• ina ldentifled neede oi the urbw the requUementa of thie Part,Federal tiea. The foAowlnQ �Decial Doliclea ��ty, Maaa�ement Circular 74-4, OMH Cir- epply to:(1)Faci;itte+eoataininp both (i> Speciat aaaeu�uftb tinder �he culsr A-102, and applicable Federel. e1{pible und inelipt6le uaea Where s 61ock prant proara.m. The folloatn� State,and local lswe; � facAtty. otherwlse eligible for assl�- poltcies relate to the use ot spectal aa- (R> Wrttten aareemenb shall be ex- tance under the block arsnt pra�ram ���ent under tha block �rsnt pro- ecuted between the partlea alilch is to be provlded a8 s part ot s multl- �; detail the re8ponalbllities, etandards; ple-use buildln6 and/or fac111ty that �1) Deltnitfon ql apecial aaaeaament and fees; also contains otheraise inellQtble usea. The term "apecial asaeeement" means (3) Compensation Jor conaultanla. � the portion ot the costs sttrlbul.ed to s fee or charBe levfed or fped ss a lten No peraon employed se s conaultant, the eli�ible facWty msy be asslsted y��t a parcel ot res1 eetate as s or by a tlrm providlna consultant ser- wlth block�rar►t funds wher�; direct result of beneflt derlved irom vlces,shall receive more then a reason- � (t) The facillty, whtch Is otherwlse the lnstallatlon of a public improve- able rste ot compensation for Dereonal e11Qlble and propoeed for assiatance. �ent, auch as streeta. curbs, and Qut- services paid wlth block grant funds � wtll occupy a desfanated snd discrete ��,�e amount of the fee npresents ahlch, on s daily basfa, ahall not uea withiu the laraer facpity,and �he pro nts share of the capital costa exceed the maximum daily rate of (il)The appllcant can determine the of the public improvement levied coml�ensatton for s d3-18 as estab- costa sttributeble to the fecllity pro- �gsinst the benefitttnB propertles. llshed by Federal law;and posed for aeslatac►ce as aeparate and This term does not relate to taaee. or (4) Ad,�ustments of rates ot compen- � distinct from the overall coste of the the establishment of the value ot real ration and payments under consultant multlple-use building and/or faclllty. �tate for the purpoae ot levying real contracts may be made where audlt � For example, a sedor center,whlch Is estate,property,or ad vslorem taxes. and moNtorinQ revieu�s lndicate that to occupy space withln a buildinQ that (2) Special waesamenta to ncover the rates of compensation were not is otherwise used for the conduct of blcek prant Iunds. The Qeneral rule is reasonable, or exceeded the maximum � general Qovernmental businesa, may that special assessments ehall not be �dally rate for s C38-18. be e�sslsted when it exclusively occu- used to recover any ot the capital cwsts ch) Tranattion poiicy!or Jiacal year pies a separate and desiQnated ares of a public improvement provlded with 1978. A number of activittes set forth withln the buUding (l.e. the senlor block arant funds. Where both block in Subpart C contain. as s part of the � center does not"tlost"W dlffereat la arant and local funds ste uaed to pro- criteria for ellgibility for blcek Qrant catlona within the butlding that vlde public tmprovements, sny apecfal assistance,requirements that acti�icies happen to be available on a less than assessment shall be prorated in pro- be necessary and approptiate to the permanent basis) and the aDPlicant portion to the tnveetment ot each.Ap- tmPlementation ot certain strateglea can determine the cost asaxlated with plicants may request sn exception to for communfty development and hous- � providinB the senlor center as distlnct thia rule where the use of epecial as- ing descrtbed in Subpart D,or that ac- irom those costs assxiated with all re- sessments as a means to leverage pri- tivities take place wlthin Netghbor- malning ineligible portions of the vate investment is necessary and ap- hood 8trate¢y Areas(NSA). buildina. propriate to impiement the sppllcant's (1) Interim atratepy alatement For (2)Fact2ttta bcated on achooi prop- strategy for economlc develoDment or those appl[cations aubmltted during � trty.My facility eltgible for asslstance neighborhood revitalizatlon. Excep- fiscal year 1978 prior to the effective pursuant to ¢870.201(c), whtch is de- tlons will not be ¢ranted by HUD for date tor the submisston of atrateBles, slQned prlmarQy for a public purpose anY apecisl assesament ahlch will re- sppltcants may submit a brief narra- other than educatlon Is not consldered cover costa of publlc Unprovements tive interim atrstegy statement for sc- to be a school or educstfonsl faclllty provided wlth block arsnt funds from tivittes sub�ect to thia requirement. � �EDERAI REOISTER, VOI. ,3, NO. Il—YVlDNESDAY, MARCM 1, 197! � 45 . . � RULES AND R6GULATIONS 8��1 � The interim strate�Z otaten►ent sha11 �r�n� funds to purch� houeea in s �overnment (but not Lhe entlre Juria- I�clude• non•lmpacted suburban Jurie�dk6lon in dlc�lon) desianeted in comprehensi�e � <I)a briei descriptlon ot the ebctivlty; order to provide a wlder cholce ot plpne, ordlnancee or other local docu- � Ui) a brlef descrlption ot the n�seds t�oualn� oPPort��tlee for central�clty menta as a nelQhborhood or, in a new and condltlona the activity Is de�lQned lower-lncoine resldents. oon�munity �a defined 1n �570.�03�a�, y���p;�d (b)Dial�wttton. DLposltlon,throuth a netQhborhood,vqlsBe or eimtlsr Qeo- (UU a brfet descrlption of boa the ule. lease. donation, or otherwise, of �aphical deatgnatton:or � activity will lu►pact uDon ths nee4a my real property aoQulred wlth bloct <ll) M entlre unit ot Qeneral local •nd conditbna which !t is dedsned to �rant funda or it�rstenWon for public �fincd in ;b?0.403cs) whmh Is nnder ��, purpases. provlded Lh�t the proceeds <Z) Iwterlm NSA �t�ipnatton. For trom i�ny such d4iposltlon shsll be pro- ?�5.000 populatlon, alth the excepllon Lhoee sppllcsl,lons eubmitted durin� aram income subJect to the rtaulre- of s factllty whtch ia deetQned 8olely as � flscal Year 1878, npplicants maY desis- mente eet forth tn !640.b08. Further � ������Y�►de facflity ln a new nste interlm N8A's for uctivttles sub- infortnstton re�4rdin� d4sposltlon ts �mmunity wfth s currently pro�ceted �ect to this requitsm�t. M fnterira aet torth tn�670.818. povulstion in excesa of 2b,000. N8A b aelected by the appilcant nnd (c) Pu0ltc lactlittu awd Imyrove. (bl SoltQ waete dispoial lactlltiu. desi�nated in the CommunitY Devel- menta. AcqulslWon, conatructlon. ra Mhich ue deflned as those physical � opment Pe�o�ram. In determinins �e ��truction. rehsbtlltation, or lnatsl- Dsi'�e ot solid wasLe mana�ement sys- siae of the NBA. the spplicant ehW lstlon.of oerf�tn Wblicly owned taclli- �+�mencina at aad IncludlnQ the take into socount the eeverity of lta Lie� and improvements. Thb m�y in- �� or dtes st ahich publicly or D�• probleeu and the smount of resources ciude the esecuWon oi srchltectun►1 ��ly owned collecilon vehtclea dis- to be provided to addreas thoae prob- design teatures, and efmllar trest- charQe muntcipsl wlld aastes, � lems. Pbr each area deelQnated ea an menb iaten�d to enhsnce the eathet- throuBh the polnt ot ultlmete dUposai N�A, the sppllcant shall .include a ic Quallty of factllties snd lmDrove- �ludinQ necessary alte lcnprovemenb brlet aarrsttve deacriptlon of ita plan ments recetvin6 bloek Qrant easfetsnce, �►d coaveying systems, tncludlns ap- for stabilizint+�nd up�radtne Lhe sres such as decorative psvemenia,nilln�s, �oDngte fixed and movabie equip- ahich: eculpture, ponU of waLer and foun- �ent lncludin� vehlcufar contatnera � <i> provides for a combinatlon oi tsLns, and other �vor�s of art. Publlc ���r the fint stage of dlsposal at physical tmprovementa, necessaty fwcilittes snd lmprotementa eltatb{e ��fer stations, but not 1ncludinQ publlc fac111tles and setvlCes, Drl�ate tar�ssiatance und��thls par�r4ph ln• �e final colleclfona. Uf $uch fscilltlea inveatment snd citlzen seli-help acttvl- clude: or equlpment must be located fn or tles approprlate to the needa of the tl)Ses{or centers,bnL excludin�an9 °en'e sress where other activitlea tn- � area;and facility whose primary function ts to cluded 1n the Comtnunity Develop- (1U coordinates Dubllc nnd D�lvate!n- provide realdentlsi aocommodatians or �ent Progrsm are beln� carrled out, veatment etforta. cat�e on a Z�-hour daY b�a1e(such a�a such�a s NBA.<II)Equipment and ap- �toup home>. pu��� � � the Wtial collec- � ;67e.to1 Basic elislble actMtfes. (Z>Parka.playproundl and other ree- tlon of aolid waste are not included arant aaslsLance maY b� used for �{°A�1°+�ititi qhlch sre deaf6ned �on� those solld aaste dlsposal fs- cllltlea eltalble tor aasistance under the followi►�Activltles: for participstion, but not spectator'ta- thb Part. (a)Acvutsition. Acquistlon in whole cilltlee such se atadlums. (8) Ftn P��'�ton laciiittu and � or 1n part by s publlc a�ency, by pur- (3)Centera 10�the handtcapped. The �uipmenL Such tacllltiea end equfp- chase, lease, donstion or otherwise, ot term "center for the handicspped" �ent must be located tn or aerve areas real property (lncludlnQ air rlghts, mesns any stngle or multlpurpose [s- where other activitiea incl�ded in Lhe - water rights, ri6hts-of-way, easementa, ciltty �hich seeka to essl�t persona Community Development Program are and otber lnterests theretn)whlch la with phy�ical, mental. developmental �����ied out,such as s NSA. � (1) Blt�hted, deteriorated. deterio- and/or emottonel lmpalrments to ��� p�e protectlon tacllitlea sre de- ratlnS, undeveloped or insDpropristely become more funetlonat membera ot ftned as the land and necessary tm- developed from the standpolnt oi Lhe community by provldlnQ D►`o� provements thereto which are neces- sound community development and or servlces ahlch msy tnclude,but ue �ry for properly housin� and storin� growth,es determined by the rectpient not limited to, recreatior►, educstlon. ilre protectlon equlpment and person- � pursuant to 6tate and locsl leas; health care, soclel development, Inde- nel by s fire protection organlzatlon, c2) Appropriate for rehabllltatlon or pendent living, physlcal rehabllitstton but not includina fire tightin� achools conservation activttles; and vocetionsl rehabllitatfon; but ex- �d their appurtenances. t3) Approprtate for the preservatton cludina any facility whose primsry (i!) Flre protection epulpment is de- or iestoration ot hfatoric slte& the tunctton la to provlde resldentlnl csre t�� � the appropriate eQutpment � besutification of urban land, the con- on s a4-hour s day besis (suah aa a �d spparatus which a flre protectlon servation of open spaces, natural re- aroup home or haliway house). For o�ization reauirea for carryln¢ out sources and sceNe areas, the provision esample, s sheltered worksk►op would a program for protectlna property and ot recreatlonel opportunities or Lhe be s sinale purpose cent�r for the malntslninB the aafety and weltare of guidance oi urben development; handlcapped. and a facUlty Drovidine the public, including emergency medi- � t!) To be used for the proviafon of eeversl aervicea for the handicaDRed cal ald,from the dangers of tire. public works, facilitles and improve- would be • raultipurpoae center for �7) pe,rkinp lecil;t;es. Such facilities ments eltalble for �sslatance under the handicaDPed. both oi whtch are muat be locsted 1n or serve areas • this subput:or - eliQibie for�ssiatance. where other sctivities included in the (5) To be used for other publie pur- t4) Neiph6orAood Jacil{ties Such ts- Community Development Program are � poses,including the conversion ot land ctlities msy be of elther a single pur- beln¢carrled out,auch as a NSA. to other uses ahere nscessary or sp- pose or mulLipurpose nature and be (8)PuDiic uttlit{r.a, other than wster propriate to the community develop- designed to provide health,eoclal, rec- and sewer,whtch lnclude: ment program. Examples lnclude an reational or simtltar community eer- (1) Facllttiea necessary !or distribu- � applicant purchasing land to be used vtcea prlmartly tor residente of the tlon of the utility cbut not production for the development of housing for neighborhood eervtce srea wk►lch Is or qeneration, suct► as elecl.rlcal �en• low- and moderate-Income persuns, elther: erntion planta): snd an appllcant whlch ie a central <I) A Beographic locatlon within the (11)Buildin6s and Improvementa that Clty of a metropolitan area using block Jurtsdlction of a unit of general locsl are nn 1nteQrsl port ot Lhe utlliLy snd � FED�RAI REGISTER, VOI. 1�, NO. N—WEDNESDAY, MARCli 1, 197� � 46 : i js;�z RUtEf ANO REODUTIONf ate ot such s nsture thst the utlllty untte enay be undertaken only rvlth have been applled tor snd denied or � alll not functlon without them;and the prior approval of HUD. not niade avallsble pursuant to the (111)The placina underQround ot ex• (e) Pti6ttc aervtctia. ProvWoa ot provbloiu ot f 570.807. � latin� or nea dfatrlbuWon taclllWea. publle �ervloa Uncludln� Iabor. sup- (S) Publie servicx� must be deter- FUrther infoematlon reQudtn�the ell- pllea and eaa�erlaL)rl�Ieh are dlrected tntned by the aDDllcant to be neceseary glblllty ot assletance to privately toward improvin� the oomenuNty'� or�DDroDriate to suDDort the ptiyslcal � owned utilities ls aet forth 1n Dublic aervicea aM tadUtles. Includln� development activtttes to be carrled �670.Z01<1). those oonoerned �vlth en�ploymen� out vithin NelQhborhood Stnteay (9) Stnet irr�provtmenta; 8treeta, crlme pnventlon, chAd cace. health. Ar�as• For example. the provlslon of street llQhta, trafilc si�nals. siQn�. drui abuae, educatfop. aelfare or reo- )ob tralntn�tor area reaidents aorklna atreet furniture. treea. brtd�es, cui- resWonsl needs. and ahich are dlnct� on neishborhood revltaltzetlon pro- � verts causeaays, curbs. Quttera. ed towud coordlnatin�public und prl• h��+ would be approprtate to aupport sideaslka, e►nd other normal appurte� vste development prosranu. $uch aet• s concentraWon ot blocic�rw�t asauted nances to atreeta and.tructurea faclll- vlces may be D�ded bY���'loeal PhYskal development activitlea bein� tatfn� the paseaQe on. or uss�e of. toverament�. au�st-DubUo. prlvate or �ed out ta the ares.(1)The apecific - stree4,but excludlas expnasasys and nonD��1� a�encies. fncludln�. but not determinsWon oi support for each pro- :� other limited aeoas ay►s urd thetr nP- Umitsd to. HtJD-aDP�ved ooun�elln� D�d Dublfc�ervlce la not reQulred to purtenances. a�encle�.aelacted by the spplicaat for ���d 1n the application,but the (30) Water and tetoer Jaciltttt� 1n- funcL D�vided under thla Part. In Wpllcant must brlefly descrlba the re- cludtna storm uwers, exceDt tor order to be elitible tor block srant u- latlonehlp ot the publlc servlce to the sewage treatment works and intercep- sletance.• Dubllc eervfoes must meet DhYsical development activtties. (il) 1 tor aeaera ahlch are descrlbM a� !n each of the tollowfn�criterls: HUD wlll e�ccept the appilcsnt's deter- ¢b?O.Z08(s)(8>. The tera� "storm (1)Public aervlcea are to be proWded minstlon thst e public aervice ta neces- sewera' meana aeaers or other con- �or resldents ot nel�hborhood�ttatep► �'Y and �Dproprlate to support the dults,open or closed,or their appurte- areaa tn which blocic �rant aasisud Phyalcal development activltles unleas nancea which collect. tranaport and phystcal development activttla ace there Is subetantlal evldence to �he � dlspose of atorm wsters,aurtace water, bei�iQ carrled out ln � concentrs6ed �ntrary, in which case sddtWonal in- atreet aaah. other wesh and Qround manner. $uch pubiic aervlces may be fordnatlon or essurancea may be re- water or drelnage into an existinQ supported wlth block �rant fund� Queated from the apDllcant prior to a water courae, but excludlnQ domeatle durinQ the perlod whkh block �rant ����Mtfon of e1lQlbillty. wasLe water and commercisl snd ln- sssi�ted physical developMent r►cttvl- <i)InLerim aaalatancG Interim assis- � duatrlal waates. tlea are beln�carried out tn s concen- �� � s]levtste hsrmful condltions (11) Foundattona and n�at/ornu!or trated manner, snd may be contlnued where Immedtate public actlon is de- air rtOhb aitea. ior no more than three years after the ���ed by the ayplicsnt to be necea- liZ)Pedeatrian malla and walAcwaya. compleWon ot such physlcsl develop- � •j•he tollowing activitfea may be � (is�Ftooa ana amsnaaelacusetea, in ment activlWes. For the purpoee ot �dertaten ae a prelude to more com- caaes ahere aasistance for such iscllt- thls para�rsph: prehenslve treatment !n arese where tlea has been detetmined to be un- (i) Physlc�l development sctivltiea ��lvltlee fncluded tn the Comrnunity avallable under other Federal laws or include oNy thosa deacrlbed in ��elopment ProQram ue to be car- programs pursuant W the provlstons f 570.201 ca) throuah (d), (t) Lhro�h �� out, snch as an NSA. ln oMer to � of ¢b70.807. The term "flood and (h), and (k). u►d ;b70.�OZ thtouQh hold the ares irom further deterlon- drainaQe fscillWee" means thoee un- �b40.203. tlon durin6 the interiin perlod: dertalcinga deslQned to lnfluence or (ii) The Dhrue "co�eatrated �i) The reDV� of atreete, affect the ilow in a natursl water enanner" ahall mean thst the blocic atdewall�s,parlca,plsy�rounds,publicly course (such as a Hver, stream. lslce. �rant assisted phydcal development oaned ut111tles and publlc butldlnQe; � estuary. bay, ocean or intermittent �ctfvlties sre betnQ carrled out wlthin (1U The lmprovement of prlvste stream)and excludes storm sewers. an uea in s coordlnsted manner to properties to the extent neceasary to (14) Other pu6lic Jacuittea aad Im- serve a common ob�ective or purpoae elia►laate imtnedfate dangera to public yrovemenla, not listed !n thla para- pursuant to a locally developed plan or health,eatety or aelfare• � graph, except those deacrlbed in atrsteBy. tltl)The establlshment ot temporary g�570.207(a)<1)and<f),which are nec- (�) 8uch aervlces muat be directed publlc playgrounds on vacant land; essary and appropriate to the imple- towsrd meetinQ the needs oi resldenta �d mentation of Lhe applicant's strate¢y of auch ueaa. Block Qtant sssl�tance (�v) The executlon ot special gar- for neiQhborhood revltalizatlon or may lncidentally be provlded for such bage, trash, and debris removal, in- � housing. eervlcxs oNy for those aho are not cludina nelghborhood clean up cam- <!)The applicant shall provide FIUD resldenta ot areaa of concentnted p��g�, but not the regular curbside alth a descriptlon of the propoeed ts- phyeical developmen�. oollectfon of RubaRe or Lrash in an cility or lmprovement and the rels- (8)A pubUc aervice muat be either(!) ��, tlot�shtp to aDPllcant'a strste�y for •nea servlce, or(1U a Quantiflable in- (�� �e fo11ow1nQ activltles may be � netghborhood revitallzstioa or houa- crease in the level of s servlce above undertaken to the extent necessary to inB. thst ahich hae been provlded by or in �eviate emergency condltfons threat- cli)Among the factora HUD will tate behsif ot the appllcant lroen local rev- enin� the public health and aafety in into account in authorizina sasistance enue sourcea or State funds recelved ��pr�ere the chiet eaecutive ofiicer under thts psragreph are the amount by the appllcant in the twelve cslen- of the applicent detenNnes that an � of beneftt to low- and moderste- dar moaths prfor to submisslon of the ��nt threst to Lhe public health Income persona, the dearee of lmpact block �rant applle�tlon. (M eYCeptlon and e�afety exlata requirtnQ immedtste on the identltled needs of the appli- to thia requlrement aith re�ard to reaolution of emerQency condltiona: csnt,snd the avallablllty ot other F'ed- 8tate•funded servlcd may be made if U)the improvement ot privete Drop- I eral funds for the activlty. HUD Qeterminea thst the decreaee in ertiea; (d) Clearance activitiw. Clearance. the level of a servloe waa the result ot (U) the nDslr ot streeta, sideaslks, demolltion and reenoval of buildlnas evenb not arif hW the conttol of the uWlttiea.and other pubUc facAlties and �nd lmprovemente,. Includln� move- applican�) Improvements;and ment ot.structurea to other aites. De- (�)F`ederal aaslatance tn providtng oe (11l)the removal of tnsh and debrta, � molltion of HUD asslsLed houslnQ �ecurinQ sucl� DuDllc aervicea murt unsate stsuctures, cleorance of streeta /EDER/►t REGOSTFR, VOL �.1, NO. 41—YVEOIiESDAY. MARCN 1. I9� � 47 . . � �tw�s �o �uuTaNS 8443 � includlne snow removal, and oLher (ill)'The avallabWty al ot,her Federal may be used directty to finance reha- stmilsr nctivittea. [unde tor the activlty. bUltatlon, tncludlnQ aettlement costs, The chlet exerutive otfleer, or hls Lt►rou�h the direct use of block �rant � desi¢nee, shall no6liy the appropriate 4 570.202 Ellrible rehsbilltaUon and ores• funds !n the provlsion ot ssslstence, ' HUD Area Otfice urlthln seven dsys of errrUew�etivltie�, auch aa grat,ta, loana, loan Quarautees determininQ that a situation ealata Cirant assL4nce may be u�eed for a►nd Interest suppJements,tor. a•hlch Qoses an imminent threat to tde the folloatns acWvittes tor the reha- (i) Coats of rehnbllltotlon ol proper- pubilc health and ulety and that Wiltation of butldin6s and tmprove• tle�. lncluding, repair dlrected toward � block arant tunda arill be used to aLe- ments: cure of an accumulatlon ot items ot viate the emereency condltlona. (s) Reha6iitlation ql pubtic rea4aen- deterred mslntenance, replacement of (g)Payment o!the non-Fede�a!rhare ttal structur�es. RehabUltstloa of pub- Drinclpsl fixtures and components ot required in connection with a Federal �ly owned or uqulted pmperties tor exfating structurea. and renovetlon �ran�ln-aid program undertaken as uae or e+eaale in the provtsion of hous- throuQh alteratlon,sddltlons to,or en- � part of the block grant activities, Fro- ing,includtn�: hancement ot exlstinQ structures, vided That such payment shall be (1) Aern�anent how�np units, both whfctrmay be undertaken dn¢ly,or fn limited to activittes otheralse ellQible a�naie Lamtly and multttamily, Ior combinatlon; under thb aubpart. rental or sale;and (ll) Itefinancing exlstlnQ lndebted- <h) Urban senewat co�npletfon. Psy- (2) Reatdential laciltltea, includlnB nesa�cured by a property bein�reha- ment of the cost of completing an �roup homee, hsltwsy houaee, snd billtated if euch reflnanclna !s neces• urban rPneRal proJect funded under emergency eheltera. For example, s �sry or eppropriate to the executton of Title I ot the Aousing Act ot 1949 as group home for the handicspped or a a Corzununity Developrnent ProQtam; amended. Furtt�er Intormatlon reBard- 6emporuy shelter for bsttered�vomsn. U11) Measures Lo increase the eft�- ing the ellgibiltty of such costs 1s set may be provided through acquisition cient use o( enerQy In sLructures � lorth!n�570.801. � and rehab111taWon of properLles for throuQh euch means ea inslallatlon ot tl> Relocatton. Relocation payments �ose purpoees, storm windowa and doors, siding, wsll and assistance for Individusls,famtliea. cb� Pubtsc Aouatnp moderniaat{on. and sttic inaulation, and conversion, businesees, nonproflt organlzatlons, Modernlzatlon and modemlzatlon ra�dlflcaGion or replucemcnt of hcat- _ and farm operaUona displac.ed by ac• pluxuiing of publicly�owned low-Income 1nB and cooling equtpmenr., tn�ludlntt � ticitiea esststni under thi� Part. Fur- housing <excludtna, 6he new const,ruc- �t►e uae of solac energy equlpment; tt�er lntormatlon regardii�g Lhe elidl• Llon of ottice taclllWea tor such publle (Iv) F'triancing of co9ts assoclnced billty ot relocation costs is set forth In housing). with the connection ot residential ¢57U.602. atructurea to water dtstributlon 11r�es � cj) Loat oJ renta2 tncotne. Psyments �N B. bloet grant ttmds ms� also be pro• • pr lceal sewer callection lines:or to housing owners for lossea ot rental vlded by en apDl{Cwtt to s publlc he�ualnQ �v) Cost� ut Initlal homeowner aar- aQency to be used tor otherwlse eligible uc- income lncurred in holdinB for tempo- ��uea,ae•.publlc rervlces such as eewrity ranty premlums for rehabllitation car- rary periods housing unita to be uti- �d day care meettnt the revutreaunte ot rfed out alth block Qrant essistance. Ilzed for the relocation of indlvlduals S 67o.Y01ce) and plann� and polfcy•vlan• (3)Materials. Block grant funds may � and familles dlsplaCed by DroBr� sC- nit�-manaQement acWvitler under �b70.2o5 be used to provide materlals, lncludlrig ttvities assisted under this Part. relaced w vubllc houalns Unprovemen�s.� tools, for use In ttie rehabllftatlon of (k> Removal o! archi�ectura! bas- �c) Rehabtlitation q/private proper- Properties either by the property riers. Special proJecta directed to the t{�, glock grant asslstance may be owner or tenant, or where arrange- re[noval of materlsl and archltectural used foc the rehab111tation of privately ments have been made tor the provi- � barriers whlch restrict the mobiltty o�� propertles. Assistance may oon- $�on of labor,such as throu�h a CE,TA and accessibiltty of elderly or handi- S��ot; arant. cupped persons to publlcly oamed and �1)Acvuisition!or the purpoae oJ re- �d) Temqorary reioca�ion assistance. privately ow�ned buildings, facllltles, habil{lation. Blcek erant funds may Biock Qrant funds may be used for and improvements. Further iniorma- � used to aseiat prlvete entities, in- �mporary relocatlon paYments and � tion re¢ardlnB the rem�val ot architec- cluding those orBanized for profit and s��stance to lndi��idiial�, familles, tural barriers is available !n publica- on a not•for-profit basls to acquire, tor businesses,. non-profit organizatior�s, tion ANSI A117.1-19B1(R. 1971)of the the purpose oi rehsbilltaWon, and re- and tarm operations d(splaced tempo- American Natlonal Standards Inatl- hsbilitate propertles for use or resale �1Y by rehabilitation activlties es- � tute,Inc. ln the provfsion ot houstng which, ststed under this part. Further intor- (1)Privately owned uttlitiea. Acqulei- upon corapletfon ot rehabllltatlon,at a mation regarding the eli�ibllity ot re- tion, eonstructlon, reconsttvction, re- minimum wlll meet the Section 8 Ex- locallon costs L, set torth in g 570.802. habJlitiatlun, or tnstallatlon of dlstri- tstin6 Housing Quelity Standards set (e) Code eiUorcement. C�dc enforce- bution facilitles and Iines of privately forth in 24 CF'R�882.109,Including: ment 1n areas K�here acLfvlties included � owned ut111ties where necessary and (U Permanent houctng units, both !n the Community Development Pro- apDropri�te to lmplement the applt- stngle famlly and multitamJly, for Bram are being carried out, such as an cant's strategy for netQhborhood revl- rental or sale;and NSA,whlch ls deterioratine or delcr�o• talization or houstng. Activities may <ii) Residentta! facllltlea, includinB rated 1n which such enforcrment to- include the placinQ underBround of group homes, halfway houses, and gether with publtc lmpro�ements, re- � new or existing distribution facllitiea. emergency shelters; liabilitatlon assistance, and scrvices to <1>The applicant shall provtde HUD (2) liehabilitation JinanMnD. Block be provided,may De expected Lo arrest with a description of the proposed ac• Qrant funds msy be used to ttnance the decllne of the area. " tivity snd the relationshlv to the ap- the rehabilltation of privately o9vned (f>N£sLoric preseruation. Rehabilita- plicant's strategy tor nelghborhood re- residenttal, non-residenital (excluding tion, preservation, restoration and ac- � vitalization or housin�. induatrial properties), and mtxed use quisltion oi hlstoric properties, either c2)AmonQ the factors HUD will take properties e[ther aithin areas where publicly or privaLely owned, which are lnto aoeount in auLhorizlnB such ac- sctivitlea included in the Community those sltes or sLructures that are tfvitles are: Development PtoBram are belnB car- either listed in or ellgible to be listed � ti)The deBree ot benefit to low-and rled out, such as a NSA, or on a syot in the National Regfster of Hisloric moderate-ineome persona; basis Lhroughout the jurisdlction o[ Places, listed in a State or local Inven- (ii) The degtee of impsct on the in- the applicant fur low- and moderate- tory ot Htsl.oric Pluces, or designated dentified needs of the applicant;and incor►►e perso��s. Block Brat�t funds as a Sl,ate or locul land mark or histor- FEDEIAI REGISiER, VOL 1y, NO. �1—WEONESDAIf, AIARCH 1, 11�! � � 48 �� � �,��.y RULES AND REGULATIONS ic dlstrlct by appropriate laa or ordt• (c)Com»urrial and industrial jaNli- or�anlzed purauant Lo sectlon 301(d) nance. ttex Acqulaitlon, conatrucWon. recon• of the Small Buslness Inveatment Act � Publlcly oaned hletorlc propertiea atruction,rehabllitation or lnetsllatlon of 1958 (1S U.S.C. 681cd>), tncludin� .may be aaslated. includln� those pmP- ��' those whlch are protlt maklnQ:snd erl.lea ahich are otheraise lnell�ible �» Commercisl or induatrlal build- liv)A local development corpontlon tor aasiatance under this �ubpsrt. �°�d structur�.includin�: ahlch is an entiLy or�anlzed purauant Hoaever. eliatbillty b Ilmited only to �l> Purchase of equipraent snd ilu- to Title VII ot the Iieadatart.Econom- � Lhose costa neceaasry for rehabllita- ���'hlch are part of the real e�tate. 1c Opportunity. and Community Part- tton,Dreservstlon or restontlon ot the but not personal property;and nesshlp Act of 1974 (4a U.S.C. 9�81): property and not for converalon or ex- <ii) EnerQy conservation 1mDrove- an enttty eliQlble tor asslstance under pansion ot the propeKy tor any tneli- �enLs deslQned to encoursBe the effl- aectton 60Z of the Small Buslneas In- slble use. For exunple.s clty muaeum clent uae ot eneray resources (includ- veetment Act ot 1958(lb U.&.C. 898>,s � setvina low- and moderate-income per• � �newable enerQy reaoutces or al- 8�� development entity eli�tble tor sons, and llated ln the Nstlonal.Re�ls• �rnstive energy reaources); esalslance under aectlon 641 ot the ter may be restored, but the addlt.ion «� Commercial or induatNal resl g�a118usinees Investment Act of 1958 of a new w1n� on the museum could nroperty laiprovements(includta�ra11- (16 U.S.C.896).or other sl�aflu entity not normally be asaiated. uNess IL �gp�or simllar extensions). lncorporated Dunuant to Federal, � wen otherwlse eligible toe aaaistance 8tste.or lceal laa. ptusuant to�570.Z0�(b). �b��������y��p����b���� �g�570.201-570.203, axdi¢570.t05 �d ;570.l07 Elf=ibM economk Ae�elopment ��'On� °�t�uO� � �'�Op' 4 570.ZOQ.Qrant assiatance may be pro- ������ ment eorporstio�s, or �nwli bwlaw vlded by an sppllcant to be utillzed by � C3cant aastatance may be provtded �n.estment eompanla. prlvate nonprotit entlties, nei�hbor- (a)Oeneral. C3rsnt aaefstance may be hood-based nonprottt organizstiona. for the followlnQ development scttvl- � by applicants to provide b1�et SHIC'a�, or local development corpora- ties whlch are not otherarlae eliQible �t funda for activitlee deaiQned to L►ons for aclivltles otherwise eligtble for block Qrant assistance, whlch are �plement the appllcent's etrste�lea for block Brant asslstance pureuant to � dlrected Loward the alleviation of tor economle development and nel�h- 44 b7U.201-5?0.203, ¢570.Z05, snd physical snd economic dlstreas. or the �rhood revltallzutlon set forth 1n this ;5T0.208. Whete auch entitles use economic development of a nea com- �tion to be carrled out by a prlvate block Brant funds Lo scqulre tltle to fa- muNty sa described !n ¢670.403<s) nonprntt entity, a netfthborhood-bsaed cilitiea. tncluding those descrlbed In throu�h stlmulatton ot Drlvate lnveat- nonproflt oraanizaWon. loca.l develop- ¢570.201(c) or 4 570.203(b), they ahal! � ment community revltallzation, and be operated ao as to be open for use by exD�lon ot economic opportunitiea �ent corporatlon. or 8mall Bualnesa �e Qeneral Dublic durin� all normal for low- and moderste-income Deraons. �veatment Company (BHIC). (1) An- houro ot oDerstlon. Reasonable feea and handicapped persons. and ahich Pt�ant Reaponatbiiittu. Appltcants �y � charged for the uae of facfli- are necessary and approprlate to Un- � nonethelea. teaponalble for cnaur- �� �quired by such entitlea, but � plement the applicant's atrateQy for ��thst block Qrant funds are utllt�ced chsrQes,such ss exceasive memberahlp economic development. by auch entltiea in a manner conala- feea,whlch alll have the effect of pre- The sppllcant shsll provide HUD �nt with the requiremente of thle �udln�low•and moderate•Income per- atth s description of the activity. and �t and other appllcable Federal, �� from ualn� the facllltfea are not ot the relatlonshlp to the appllcanC's $tate, or local laa. Speclflc require- ����t�, � strateBy for economic development. In ments Boveming the administratiun ot �c) Community economic develop- authorizinQ activities, HUD wfII take the use of blocic �rsr►t tunds by such �n� ar neiDhborhood revitalizalion into socount the amount of long•term entitiea are set forth tn ¢b70.814. Ap- activtties. C3rant sssistance may be employment to be generated by the PUcants wtll also be responaible for the provlded by an appltcsnt to be used by activity acc�ssible to low- and moder- �'Ying out of appltcable environmen- nefghborhood-based nonprofit organi- � ate-income persona, the aeceasity ot � reviea and clearance reaDonslbll- yattons, SBIC's or local dsvelopment the activity to stlmulate Drivate in- �t��• corporations,but not prfvate nonprufic vestment, the degree of impact on the �a) Eltpible EnQi�iea. Entitles ellglble entitles as defined !n ¢570.209(a)(2>ci), economic condttlons of the applfcant, �receive block grant funds under thls tor community ecor►omlc development � and the availablllty of other Federal ��ion are: (i) A private non-protlt or nelQhborhood revitall�ation activi• f�� entity whlch is any oreantzstlon, cor- ties which are not otherwise eligible (a) Acquisittoa Acquisitlon of teal poratlon, or essociatton, duly orga- ror assistance under this subpart and property for economic development nized to promote and undertake com- which are determined by the applicant purposes; munity development acl.ivl6les on a to be necessary or appropriate to the � (b) Public lacilities and tmprove• not-for-proflt basls, including new accomplislunent ot Its Community De- menta. Acquisitlon, conatruction, re- community asscetations as defined in velopment Pro�ram. Such activlties consttuction, rehabilttstlon, or tnstal- �570.403(b); may lnclude the provlslon of block latlon of public facilities and lmprove- <it) A neiqhborhood-based nonprottt g�t esstsLance for use by neighbor- menta not otherwise eligible for assis- orBanlzation which is an associatlon or hood-based nonproflt orKai�izations, � tance, except bulldings and facilitiea corPoration, duly orBan►zed to pra BBIC, or loca! development corpora- for the Beneral conduct of goverrunent �o�and undertalce community devel- tlons for. which sre excluded by¢570.207(a)(1). opment scttvities on a not•for•profit (1)Asalstance through ¢rants,loans, For example, in an area wtth an un- basls within a nel�hborhood as de- Quarantees, interest supplements, or employment rate ln excess ot the ns- ilned pursuant to ¢5?0.201<cX4>. M technicsl agsistance to new or existlnB � tionsl rate, f► manpower training organization is considered to be nel�h- amall buslneasea, minority busineases center whlch le designed to prepare for borhood-based if the maJortty of and netQhborhood nonprofit business- the aork force low- and moderate• either ita membership, clientele, or es for lncome persons who are unemDloyed Boverning body are residents ot the (i) Working capital or operatlonal � or underemployed, may be seslsted nelghborhood where activitles asslated funds;and ahere it 1s detern►ined by the appli- with blxk Qrant funds are Lo be car- (11) Capital for land, structures. cant that such a faclllty ia necessary ried out; pmperty improvements,and ilxtures; and e►ppropriate to support ifs eco- (ilU A Small Buatneae Inveatment (2) Capltallzstion of a SBIC or local nomic development strate�[y. Company (SBIC) which Is an entity development carporation requlred to � FEDERAI REGISYER, VOL �.1, NO. Il-WEDNESDA1f, MARtN 1, 197� � 49 " } � ^ � tuus � Reauu�s s4as Quality tor udstanoe undes other,Pbd- epecltte�both ahort-and lons-tern�ob- m�u�lty develoD�ent �cUvtties tl-. � �pr��; ,�ective� to �ulde the �ppUcaat'r Cocn- nanced,ln ahole or tn part.alth tunda (8) Aseistance to minortty contrsc- muNty Development I'roaram• provided under thia Part and houslna tots to obtala pertormance bondli�;or (�) Relattd piannlnD and ur0an tn- activitlea covered 1n the appllcant's � • <4) Other activlWes. exclndin� those o�ronhunta! deNpn acttivittu inNud- Houxl�� Aaslstance Plan(HAP). Coata deecribed �s lnell�ible for block Brant {n0 the D�O�t1on of communitywlde Incurnd !n carryln� out the Dro�ram. �si�tanoe in �b?0.90?<sXl) �nd <e). plans for land use. housln�. open rhether ch�ed to the proQram or. a spproprlate for oommunity eoonomto sW�ce. recreatlon, uWltia. hlatortc dlrect or �n indlrect bssb. must be in development or nel�hborhood revital- D�e�pWon. Includln� eurve9e oi hia- contoemance aith the requlrements of � laatlon. When an aDD11c�►nt proposes torfc propertiee. economlc develop- 1�'edei'a1 11�anagement Clrcular cFDdC) Lp fund such enWt►ea to undertalce ac- ment, nefahborhood preaervstlon. re- 74-4, "Coat Princlples ApDlicable to tlWtte� putsuant tp thls pataQre►ph. moval of srchltcctural brrrfen to the d�� sr►d Contnct�s aith $tste �nd the appUcant shall: elderly and handlcapped.and envtron- �a1 CJovernmenta." Ail Items of coat U)Provide HUD with a comDlete da mental�sseasment; ltsted ia Attachment B, 8ection C af � �criptlon of the propoeed�ctivlty; (6) GblIectlon q/detatled data, �rep- thrt Ctrcular<except Item 8,prea�ree- (U) Provlde HOD �rlth r descrlDtfon araWon oi �nalysea. enQineerinQ and �ent l�ost, ahich ue eli�lble only to oi the nhtion�hlp ot the propoaed so- deal�n of faclliWea eltaiWe foc �asfs- the extent authorfxed 1n �5?0.301cc) tivlty to the appUc�nt's strsterY tor tanoe ahich can be conatructed �r1th � �'�►ble without prior approval � Ael�hbpshood rev1ta11asWon or econ- block�rant tunds:wd to the extent they conatltute reason- m1c development;and <e)Develofl+++ent ql cod�ea.onlinancu �ble cos4 and are otheralse elf�lble (W) Reoetve specftic �uthorizstloa and r�ePulat{on�, ne�eary for the Im- ��r thls subpart. it�n H[JD to undettate the ecWvitq. • DlementaWon oi the P1an. 1ncludln� (s) Bi{a�P�mm adminiatratton local falr housin�ordlnatuxa. �� ��►ble adaninistrative coats � �67�.tA6 Bif�lbb Plu��las.�ad�rb�n ar <b) Deveto�ment qJ a poHcy-platt- �d stsfi expenaea lnclude tiecessary droawa�W Ae�y�oods. ntn�-mana0sr»ent capacity ao t!u►t the expendltuses for the followin�: Ciraat aedstanoe msY be used ior �DDlicant maY: (1)8alarlea. aaQes and relsted coets the foIIo�vins planNni.d�l�.��- �1)Set lon�•teria and�horwterm ob- of the aDplicant's atatf and the ataff ot ������; �ective� related to the conununity de- locsl public e►genciea en�ta¢ed tn c.arry- � <a)Developmen!q/a Comprehe�utve velopment aud houetn�needs oi lb�u- �out the proeram; Community Development Plan. Pbr rledlctlon; �Z� Trs��l costa incurred for o[ffclal tlie purpoee o! thls �ecWon, the tettn «���P���d activltid to ��� � �Yln¢ out the progrum: "Comprehenslve CommuNty Develop- meet these gosls md ob,tecttves; �3) Administrative servlces per- ment P1an" meana a statement os <9) Eetabllah sn urban envlmnmen- formed urider third•party cot�trwcts or � etatementa (in words. enaps, illuaf,ra^ ta1 deaign sdmiNstrative eapaclty to °���`nts, fncludlna such servfces as tlons or other methods of commuNca- � s syatemsUc. lnterdfaciplfaary �p- Qen�ral leQal services, sccounttn� ser- tion)whlch ldentify the preaent condl- proach to the intearated uee oi nstu- vices and sudlt eervlcea; tions,needs and ma�or Dmblems of the � �d ��� �lencea and envlron- «� Other costs for �oods and ser- appllcant's )uriedlctton relstln�to the mentsl desiQn arta in plannit�snd de- W� requlred for adminlatratlon of � specUlc oblectives of the Comtnunity ciaion matln8; the proQram,IncludlnB euch Qoods and Development Proaratn sa set torth in «� �v�� the prof�rees of such °en'icea ea rental and mslntenance of 670.9<s)and set torth ob�ectivea,poll- P�B�end activlltea�nd the ext;ent otiice space, insurence, utilltiea, oitice 0 suppllee and rentsl or purchese oL cies and etandsrds to �ulde.the devel• tc►whlch the goaU and ob�ectivea hevo oftice equfpment; � opment and UnDlementation of auch been accompllshed;and (b) Coefs assocleted with the admin- Community Development Proaram. (5) Carry out the manaQement. oo- �tratlon ot individual DroQram accivi- Activittea necessary Lo develop A Com- ordlnation and monitorina ot the ac- �es;and prehensive Cor►ununity Development af ithe ppllcant'ga Community Devel �8) 12eaeonable adminlstraLlve costs Plan may Include: relating to the provision of rehabUitu- � (1) Data pathertn� and atudtu nec- opment ProBram. tlon loana under Sectlon 312 of the essary tor the development oi the (c) Compnhenaive planninp act�vt- gouslnQ Act of 1884,aa amended, and, Plan or i4 componenta, inciudin6 the Nes. In addition to the planNn�activl- where appropriate, admfnf�tration of productton of base mspDin�snd serial Liea otheraiae e1lQible for aasistsnce � �.ban homestesdlnQ proBrsm Dur- phatoQraphy in coordinution with the under thls section. aaeistance map be suant to sectton 810 ot the Housing � U.$. C3eoloalcal 8urvey. and Qatherin� slao Provtded for oomprehenatve pian- �d Community Development Act of Wormation irom citizens, but exclud- Nn� activlties eli�lble for esaistsnce 19?4, se amended, in accordance aitl� !na the gatherinB ot detatled data and under the section 401 plsnnlna ssels- the Community Development Pro- preparine ol analyses necessarY for tance proBram parsusnt to �4 CFR �.�or housing assistance plan. � the enBtneering and design of facilities Part 800 pmvided that svch additlonal �b) The provision oI iNorniation os acti��itlea ineltgible for block Qrant Planning activlttes are necessaty or ap- and other neaourcea to residents and assiatance pureuant W 4 570.207; propriate to meetln6 the needs and ob- Cltlzen organlzutions particlpating in (2) Developmen�q/atatemenb qJob- iectives ot the appllcanta' Co�nmuntty the planninB, Implementatlon, or as- ,fectivea. poltcles and standarda regard- Development Program. The appllcant �.�ment of activitlea being carried out � in� proposed or focseesbte chanQee 1n shall eubmit e deacrlptlon of the actlw wlth block grant funds. Thi� may 1n- the present conditiona or problems si- ity to HiTD. Amon� the [actora HUD clude aselatance to netBhborhood orga- fectlnQ the applicant'a Jurledictton will tske inW aocount tn suthorl�inQ nizstions tn areas of concentrated ac- that are W be addressed by the Com- activitiea will be the Impact of the ac- tivities or to city-wlde orQanizations munity DeveloDment ProBratn, lnclud- tivity on Lhe needa ond ob�ectives iden- �nductinB trslning or other activtties � !n� policlea whlCh wW aftlrn►etively tifted by the appllcant, snd the avsil- deslgned to inCrease the capabillty o[ further fair houslnQ; ability of other Federal tunda. low- and moderste-income persona to l3)Dev�lopment q/a thne-year Com- 6T0.208 Eti ble Adminl.tr�Uve be �nvolved effectively in the develop- munity Development Plan which tden- ment nnd pianning and deslgn ot s tifles the community development, �� community development proqram con• � housing, and economlc condttlons and Payment of reaeonaDle admtnistra• slstent with lhe appllcable citizen par- needs, demonstrates a comprehensive tive costs and carrying charKea related Llcipatlo:� requlrementa set forth In atrate�y for meeting thoee needs and to the plannlr►�and execution of com- thi�Part. FEDERAL REGKTiR, VOL 4i, NO. +1—WRONESGAY, MAICM 1, 197� � , � 50 t �i � g�g RULES AND RECiUTA?IONS (c)Pbnl+lon alJalshouainp counsel- The nea conatructbn ar dlrect it• Lhe Qovernina•body ot the reclDlent inp ierutcer snd other acttvlties de- nsnclnQ of new conatructfon ot hous- meets re�ularly and which are pre- � siQned to further the falr housin�pra 1n8 is not e1talDle for a,sl�tance r dominanUy uaed tor mualcipal pur- •vblons ot f 570.307(k)�nd the houaln� thls Psrt, except �s dercrlbed� Do�es.courthouaea, pollce stsWons and ob�ective of promotis� �rester choice S b40.20?(f). other inunlcipsl ottice Oulldln�s; ot housins opportunities and svotdlnQ (h) $nviron»tiental 3t�dtei. The rea• (�) OtJkr lacilitfea and tmprnve- undue ooncentntions of saslsted per- aonable ooab oi environmental studtes, menta. whlch roay not be provtded � eona in aeeas oontslnit�a hiah propor• lncludinR historle D��atlon clear- �vtth block Qrant funds unleas they are tion ot loper-ir�come persons. For ex• ances. neceesary to comply with 24 , determined by HUD to be necesaary ainple, activfttea msy tnclude inform- CFR Part 68.Includin�proJect spacific and spproprte�te to the lmplementa- !n� membece of mtnorlty groupa, and envtronraentel assea�m►ente and clesr- tton ot an appllcsnt'i stnteQy for com• � the handicspped. ot tiouslna opportu• ances for actfvitie� ell�lble for arsls• munity development and houslna ln nities !n non-tradltlonal netQhbor• tance under thfs Part. sc�cordance with f�6T0.901(cX 14> or hoods and provldlns lntormatlon b70.ZOS<b),include: sbout such areas, and aseistlna mem• �670.2M Iaelt�iWe�etivltia�. (i) Facllitiu wed Jo� eshibtLLonr, ben ot minorlty �roups. and the �e followin� b a lirt ot acUvitlea +J�tator evenb and cr�t�erol pas- � handicapped. throu�h provWon of whlch are fuellQlble tor block Qrant as• Poju. Includlnt stad�uu�s. sDort�a esoort �ervlea to brolcen� offtce� In slstsnce under most clrcuavtancer and arenas,sudltortums.ooncert ha1L.cul- non•traditlonsl nelQhborhooci�, �rvea as a�eneral �ulde reQardln�In• ��s1 and art cenGen. oonventlon cen- (d) ProWalon c�/aas{atance to larilt elfQlble activltles. There ue aeveral �n and exhlbttlon halls, rnueeuma, tate perJormaace and payment Doad• authoriLles set forth ln Subpart C central librartea. and slmilar [aclllttea. � !np necesassy for contractora carryfn� ahlch would peranit activitlea clted in For the purpose ot this para�raph, i!- out activfti�aaelsted with block Qzant � aection to be undertaren alth brarlea Uncludint central llbruies in funds includln�.psyment ot bond pre- blxl� �rant funda. When an activity unita of general local Qovernment miuros in aehalt of contrnetoca. ueed as an exstnDle 1n Lhb section under 25,OU0 populstton ahere the crl- <e) Proptrty manapem�nL Reason• �eeta the requlrements tor e11QibUity terls set forth in �b70.201(c)<lX11) are � sble costa oi manaQin� proDerties ac• pur8uant to 8ubpart C, auch ao acWv- aatieticd>,cultural,art and museutn is- qutred wlth block arant funds. �ty msy be asslsted aith block Qrant cIIitles whlch meet the reQuirements <f) Ap�licatioat !or Fedrra! �ro- tunds even thou�h lt is used as an ex- for nelQhborhood tacUlttes eet torth In '� pra»u, includin� the b�ock arant pro- �p�e of an IneU�tble acWvlty.The list !670.201(cKU sn considered netah- grsm and UDA(3 proBram,maY be pre- of examplea of ineli�ible acWvittes b borhood facllitfes and are therefore � pared wlth bloct grsnt funda when merely Wustrative and doea not constl• eliQlble for assfstance. necessary and spproprtate to imple- tute a list of all tnell�ible acUviWes: (il) Schoolt and educational Jacilt- _ ment the appllcant'a comDrehenaive �a) pu0�ic �oork�. lactlttlu and aite Nu. (includin�elementary,secondary, � stnteQy► for cotnmunity developmen� or other {mprove�ne�tta. The Qenenl coUege, and uNversfty facilltlea). For Speclal provislons reaarding letter �o rule b that public worlu.taclllUea and the purpose of thls paraRraph. � proceed for small clty applicants sre ��or other improvementa ue ine11Q1- A net¢hborhood facWty, eenfor cuntsined In Subpart F. ble to be acquired, conatructed, recon- center or center for the ha,ndicspped tg)Aclivities to lacilitatt Ne {mple- atrucled, rehsbilltated or instaUed !n ahlch clssees fn practical and vxa- menlation atl a housisp aasiatance ��� �,hey are ellgible purauant to tfonal activitles cauch as flrst ald, ha plan tor necessary expenaes. prlor to �570.201(c) or g 570.205(b), or aere memakQ�, cratts, tndependent living, � constructlon, In planning and obtatn- prevlously eligible under any of Lhe etc.) ue amonQ the services provlded tng fdnancing for the i�ew eonsttuctlon proQrams eonsolldsted by the Aet !s not consldered as 4 school or educa- or substantfal rehebllitation ot hous- ��xcept the public 1acUlties loan pro- tfonal taclllty; ing for lower-income peraons. Activi- aram,tt►e model clties program,and as (itl) Airports, aubwapa, troiley linea. � t ies may include: �urban renewal loca] �rant-In-aid eli- Dus or other trnns{! tern�iaals, or ata- (1) The rosta of conductfna preliml- nary suneya snd analyses of market Bible under sectlon 110(dX3) ot Koua• tions, and other transportatlon facili- needs; ina Act ot 1949)and clted 1n g 540.1(b>. ties. (excludtnQ railroad spurs asalsted (2) 31te and utility plans, narrative Activlties undertaken to make tacll[- pursuant to¢b70.Z03(c>). descrlptfons of the proposed construc- t[es an�improvement8 otherwlse lneli• Uv) Nospi[ala, nursinp homes and � tion, preliminary cost estlmates, urban Qible for development wlth block grant other medical laMtitiea. For the pur- design documentation, and "sketch ssslstance accessible to the elderly and pose ot this paraaraph, a neighbor- draaings," but excludtng architectur- handlcapped through removal of ar• hood faclllty, senior center, center for al. e:161neerinB, and other detalls ordf- chltectural barrlers, or tor the pur- the hendicapped.which provide Bener- � narlly required tor construction pur- P�es ot hlstoric preservatlon pursuant al healLh servlces ia not considered to poses, such as structural, electrlcal, �o g§570.201(k) and 570.202cf), respec- be a medical faclllty. plumbinB,and mechanical detalls; tively, are eli8ible for arslatance wlth (v) Treattnent woska Jor aewape or c3) Reasonable costs associated wlth block Brant funde and are not pre• induatrtal waatet oI a lipuid nature, c�e�•eloptr.ent of applicatlons for mort- cluded by thls sect(on. Where acqulsl• consisting of the various devices used � gaQe and Insured loan commttments, tion ot real property includes an exlat- in the treatment ot aewage and com- lncludlnB commttment fees, and of ap- in� improvement whlch Is to be utl• mercial �►nd industrial aastes ot a p?icat[ons a.nd proposals under the Ilzed tn the proviston of an ineliglble liquld nature, tncludin(t the neceasary Sectlon 8 housing asststance paynieiits Gublic factlity, ttie portlon of the ac• intercerLor eewers, outfall sewers. program pursuant to 24 CF'R Parts quisition cost attributable I,o such Im- actual treatrnent facllitfes, pumping � 880-883:and prove�nent, as well as the cost ot sny stalions, power and other equfpment, c4) Fees assoclated with processing rehabilitatlon or conversion undertak- and their appurtenances. The term of applicatlons for mortQaee and in- en to adapt or make the propert,y ault- "tntrrce��t•or aewer" means a !!ne si�red loan commitments under pro- able tor such use, shall be fneligible. which has as tts prtmary purpose the grams includtn�those administered by Examples inciude the following: dlverslon or transmisalon of sewage � HUD, F'srmers Home Administratlon (1) Buildinps and Jacilities Ior lhe from a collect(on system to a treat- cF�nHA), Federal National Mortgage peneral conduct oJ�overnment, cannot ment faclllty, and applles to the fol- Assoclation (FNMA), and the Gov�rn- be provtded with blcek Qrant nssls- lowing: ment National Mortgage Assoclation tance, such as city halls and other (A) In those situaliona where raw or � iGNMA). ' headquartera of Qovernment wtiere In3dequately trested sewage is belnQ fEDERAI REGISiER, VOL. 13, NO. �1—MIEDNESOAr, MARCM 1, 1970 � 51 _ � RULES ANO RE�itlLATIONS ga.17 � diecharaed from an exlsting publlc publlc servke within the facllity, in- O�any other purpose. F.xam�>IFS o( in- aewer.thaee aewer lln�.whether grav- cludlnQ costa ot ren� u6llltlee and ell�ible lncome payme�iG� i►iciude che ity or force, and any D�mD��etations matntenance, followinq: psymenta tur lncome maln- or other appurtenancea thereto whtch Examples ot sctivlties whlch are not tenance, housing sllowances, down � , are necessary to prevent or eUminete eligible for block Qrant aesistanoe are: payments snd mortgage xubbfdies. the dlectiarge Into any wateraay ot (1) Matntenanee and repalr of III.Conformin�changes are made to raw or tnadequat,ely treated sewa�e streets. parlus, playgrounds, watcr and part 670 as follows: from an existing potnt or points ol dls- �aer faciltties, neighborhood faclll- charge in a public aystem are not eltgt• tles, aeNor cenixrs, centera tor the 4 570.�W [AaAended) � ble.Thls includes any necessary pump• handlcapped� psrting attd sltnilac 1. In 4 570.4031h), lhe refere,�ce t.o in� atatlone, force mains or other ap- public facilltlea. Examples of malnte- ��g 570,�pp�a��� � changed to purtenances thereto;and nance and repalr activltiea for which •�¢g70.201(cK!)." (H) In all other aitustions, the line block grant tunds nisy not be uaed !n- or lines whlch dlvert the iloa to the clude the iilllnQ of pot holee In atreets, �670.4oS [Amended) � treatment facility from the po(nt of �Pa�rinB o[ cracks in sldeaslks, the 2, In ¢570.405(b), the reference to natural diacharge of a collectlon mowing ot reereattonal areas, and the ��4 570.'l00" !g changed to ��3ubpart C." eystem, where no trestment to be pro- �p2�ettlent ot expeaded sCreet li�ht vfded. 1i�cludlnQ any necessary pwnp- bulbs. f 670.407 [Amended) in8 atations, force maina or other ap- (2) Pe�yment of salarles for atatt, 3. Jn ¢b?0.�07cd), the reference to � purtenances are not ellQible. u613ity coatB and eimllat expenses nec- "�570.200" Is chansNd to "3ubpart C." <b)Purchaae q/eprctpment The pur• essary tor the operatlon o! publlc chase of equipment aith block grant works and facllitles;and g 570.b12 IAmendedl funda Is generally lnellglble. <3) Expensea sssoclated wlth provi- �. In 4 570.612<e), the reterence to � (1) Co�ulructfoa epu{p�n� �e eion of any public servlce whlch is not ���570.2U0" Is changed to'�$ubpart C." purchase ot construction equipment is eligible for sssistanca putsuant to tnellQible, but compensation far the 0 870.ZOlte). 4 670.601 [Amendedl uee oi auch equipment through lesa- <d� General Dovernment e2pensea 6. In ¢570.801(b)(9NUi), the refer- , ing, deprecfatfon or use sllowancea �pe� �9uired to carry out the ence to"g 570.Z00"Is changed to'�Sub- � �ursuant to Attachment B of OMB regular responslbWtfee of the unit of p�,rt C." Claoular A-102 tor an otherwlse eligi- Beneral locai government are not ellgt- ble activity is an eltgible use ot blxk ble tor esststance under this part, Ex- 4 670.60T (Amended] Brant funds. M exception 1s Lhe pur• �ples include all ordlnary general g, In g 570.80T, the reterences to chase of constructlon equtpment Bovernment expendltures not related ���507.200ca)(8)," '�¢b70.200cb)," and � ahich is used aa a part of a aolid weste w the Comm�u�ity DeveloDment 1'ro- dlsposal facility whlch is ellgible for �'��d not telated to activitlea ellgi- �,4 570.2001e><2)" are changed to blcek Qrant assl�tance pursuant tp ble under thls subpart. '6 570.201(e)," "�bT0.200(c)," and �� �870.201(eX5), such as a bulldozer �e> Politica.l activitiea. No expendl- ��4 b70.201<c)(13),"respectively. used at a sanitary IandtiU. ture may be made for the use of equtp- �b�p,gpl [Amended) � (Z)Furntshinpa and personal pmper- ment or premisea for polltical pur- ty. The purchase of �8 BpO��B or c�nducting candi. �• In �670.801(bXl>Ui), the reter- eaufpment, tix- ��:��t��� en�aQtng in voter reg- en�$ �O ���b70•200" sre changed �o tures,motor vehlcles,or furnishlnB$or �tration acWvlty or voter transporta- ��gub�w'�C." other personalty not an tntegral struc- �ion or other partisan polltical activi• � tural fixture is ineligi3le, except when t�� ¢bT0.9oT [Amended) necessary tor use by a reclplent or its �t� Neto houainp conatruction. Assls. 8• In �570.907(h), the reteretices to subgrantees in the adeninistration ot �� �y not be used for the con- ���b70.700(a)(8)" and ��p 570.2001a)c2)'� its Community Development Program $truction of new are changed Lo pursuant to �570.205(d), or as a part Permanent reslden- „ "#b70.201(e)" and ot a publlc aervlce pursuant to t�� g�cturea or for any program tp ¢570.201(cX13),"respectfvely. �570.201<e). subsldlze or fInance such new con• §b70.909 (Ameeded J structton, except as provlded under <c) Opemtinp and mainlenance ex- the Isat resort housing provfslone set 9. In ¢570.909(f)<1Xi), the reference penae�. The Qeneral tule is that any forth in 24 CFI�2 part 43, or pursuant � "�570.200" Is changed to "Subpart � expense assoctated with operating. � g b70.204<cX4). For the purpose of C,•' malntaining or repa[ring publlc facili- this paragraph, gCttyltles 111 suppott Of �qytle I, fIousing and Communfty Develop• tles and works or any expenee assxlaG the development of low- or moderate- �en� Acc ot 19?� t42 U.B.C. a301 ee aeo.>; ed wlth providing publlc services not income housing !n accordance wlth an Tltle I. Huusing and Community Develop- assisted wlth blcek grant fwids is ineli- approved Housing Aasistance plan in. ment Acc ot 1977 cPub. L. 95-128f; and sec. Blble for assiatance. However, operat- cluding clearance, site essemblage, 7ca>.Deparlment o[Houslne and Urban De- , ` ing and maintenance expenses associ- provision of site and proviston oi velopment Act(4�U.8.C.3535cd)).) ated with providing publlc services or publlc lmprovements and certain hous- �u� a� W�,yhington. D.C., Febru- t interim assLstance otherwiae eligible tng preconstruction costs set forth in �.y 21,1978. for assistance under thls Part may be ;570.2051d)(7), are not considered as sasisted. For example, the cost ot a prograrns tu subsidlze or finance new Roe�xt C.EMBRY,Jr., `{ public service being operated with residentlsl conatruction. Aaatstant Secretary for Commu• block grant funds in a neighborhood (g) Income payments, The general n{�Y Planninp and Devclop- faciltty may include reasonable ex- rule ls that assistsnce shall not be ��. � Penses esaociated aith operatinB the used for lncome payments for housing (FR,Doc.78-b179 Filed 4-23-78;2:2�pm] �� I i FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 4�, NO. �1—WEONESOAY, MAR[!i i, 1975 �I %. ' � 52 , , � � 7.0 (APPENDIX) POLICY IMPLEMENTATION � � . CIB COMM T EE ether t e po icies state n this ocum4nt are imp e- POLICY IMPLEMENTATION mented depends upon whether capital improvement proposals � selected for funding are consistent with these policies. Monitoring implementation of policy is a joint � responsibility of several groups. These are: The Planning Cammission, tMe Capital Improve�ent Budget Committee and its task forces, the Budget Section of the � Mayor's Office, and the City Council . City Council has overall responsibility for policy implemen�ation, of course, but also must specifically set bond financing policy so that the parameters of tax supported local � capi�al improvement funding is known at the start of the United Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process. � In general , responsibility for implementation of the policies in this document is broken down as shown in Figure 10 on page 54. As can be seen in that figure, the � Planning Commission and CIB Comnittee have responsibili- ties relating to policies B, F, G: the CIB Committee for budget recommendation and the Planning Comnission for budget review to determine policy conformance. � The CIB Committee, through its task forces, has respon- sibility for rrronitoring implementation of policies H, I, � J, K, L, R1 , and S during project selection (sometimes jointly with the Budget Section and City Council). These are the implementation, development and budget policies. � A principal rr�ans of ensuring consideration of at least some of these implementation, development, and budget policies in selection of projects is through the project � rating sheet. This rating sheet is used by the task forces of the CIB Committee to arrange proposed capital improvement projects in a recommended order of budgeting � priority. In order to assure selection of projects in accordance with policies H, I, J, K, L, R1 , and S it is necessary that evaluation criteria on the rating sheet � - reflect the intent of those policies, as appropriate. The Planning Commission recoramends that the CIB Comnittee review proposed projects in light of these policies and � incYude appropriate items in its rating shest. To assist the CIB Comnittee incorporate adopted policies into the rating sheet, on page 55 is a list (1-8) of policy-related � rating considerations: � � � 53 � � FIGURE 10: POLICY IMPLEMENTAT.ION RESPONSIBILITY CHART � Planning Comnision CIB Committee Project Budget Project Budget Budget City � . Policy Review* Review* Review* Recom.* Section Council �, A A a, �� B B B r O d C C � � . +� D D �s N E E � F F F G ' G G � H H � I I � J J � a, � '� K K b •� � od° L � •r � � +� a M M M � a�i° N N N r- a� � 0 0 0 0 0 � p P P P Q not used � R R1 R2, R3 S S � T T T U � � V V w w 1 *"Budget Recommendation" and "Budget Review" both refer to the CIB Committee � recommended budget as a whole; "Project Review" refers to eva1uation of individual proposals. The Planning Comnission will review the CIB Committee recormnended budget to comment upon consistency with policies B, F, and G. � 54 � � � . , ' 1.Funds committed to previous phases of a project (policy I ' H�. 2.Planning Commission's determination of proposal 's � effect on furth�ring capital allocation policy strategy elements (policies A, C, D, �., Transmittal to the CIB Corr�ni ttee wi11 be i n the form of a "Yes, Parti al , No" � determination) . 3.Whether the proposal is for improvement to an existing : . facility or is for developing a new facility (policy I). � 4.Whether land acquisition is involved, and for what purposes (policy Jb.l and Jb.2). � 5.Leveraging and return projected for a proposal (policy . Ja,2, Jb.3, and K). , 6.Discouragement of use of tax abatement as a development incentive (policy L) . 7.Operating/maintenance costs associated with a proposal � (policy Rl ). � 8.Adequacy and logic of phasing and programming of proposal (policy S). The Planning Corr�nission also recommends that the CIB � Committee task forces continue to partially base their _ _ priority recommendations on other reasonable criteria d�signed to judge the worthiness of a proposal . In the � � past, these evaluation criteria have included: 9.Priority class_ification by operating departments responsible for implementing a proposal. � 10.Priority classification by affected district councils. , 11 .Rlanning Commission's determination of conformance with St. Paul 's Comprehensive Plan. (Transmittal to the CIB Committee will be in the form of a "Yes, Partial , No" � determination). 12.Extent of area or nurr�er of people affected by a � proposal. 13.Extent of usage throughout the year. � 14.Expected useful life of a proposal . � 55 ! 1 15.Extent to which a ro osal du licates another ublic � P P p P or accessible private facility. 16.pegree to which proposal meets or exc�eds identified � need it is proposed to address. 17. Impact of the proposal on aesthe�i�s or environment � (Commission suggest adding heritage pr^eservation to this item) . 18. Im act on ener demand. � p 9Y The Commission recommends tha� these eva1uation criteria � � be retained on the task force project rating sheet. The Commission also asks consideration by th� CTB Committee of an addition to this list of non-policy evaluation � criteria: 19. Inclusion in Planning Commission recommended Capital Improvement Program. j Evaluation criterion number 19 would give additional consideration to proposals which have been made pdrt � of the recorr�nended Capital Improvement Pr�ogram by tMe Planning Commission. These nineteen items are recommended by the Planning � CommiSSion for CIB Comm�ttee consideration as the core of the 1978 project rating sheet to be used by CIB Committee task forces. � NN N COMM SSION To be printed an mai e aroun pri , , a er e � POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Planning Commission hears and adopts evaluation procedures based on recommendations From the Capital Allocation Policy Committee of the Planning Commission. ) � � � , � � 56 � � . ' � 1.Funds committed to previous phases of a project (policy � H,' : 2.Planning Commission's determination of proposal 's I effect on furth�ering capital allocation policy strategy elements (policies A, C, D, E. Transmittal to the CIB - Cor�anittee will be in the form of a "Yes, Partial , No" determination). � 3.Whether the proposal is for improvement to an existing facility or is for developing a new facility (policy I). � � 4.Whether land acquisition is involved, and for what purposes (policy Jb.l and Jb.2). � 5.Leveraging and return projected for a proposal (policy Ja.2, Jb.3, and K). � 6.Discouragement of use of tax abatement as a development incentive (policy L) . � 7.Operating/maintenance costs associated with a proposal {policy Rl ). � 8.Adequacy and logic of phasing and programming of proposal (policy S). The Planning Comnission also recommends that the CIB ' Committee task forces continue to partially base their priority recomnendations on other reasonable criteria _„ _ designed to judge the worthiness of a proposal . In the � � ' � past, these evaluation criteria have included: - 9.Priority classification by operating departments � responsible for implementing a proposal . � P iorit classification b affected district councils. 10. r y Y I 11 .Planning Commission's determination of conformance with St. Paul 's Comprehensive Plan. (Transmittal to the CIB Committee will be in the form of a "Yes, Partial , No" � determination). 12.Extent of area or number of people affected by a , proposal . 13.Extent of usage throughout the year. I14.Expected useful life of a proposal. � 55 � � 15.Extent to which a ro osal du licates another public � P P p or accessible private facility. 16.pegree to which proposal meets or ex��eds identified � need it is proposed to address. 17. Impact of the proposal on aestheti�s or environment � (Commission suggest adding heritage preservation to this item) . 18. Impact on energy demand. � The Commission recommends tha� these evaluation criteria � ' be retained on the task force project rating sheet. The Commission also asks consideration by the CIB Committee of an addition to this lis� of non-polacy evaluation � cri�eria: 19. Inclusion in Planning Commission recommended Capital Improvement Program. � Evaluation criterivn number 19 would give additional consideration to proposals which have been made par� � of the recorr�nended Capital Improvement Program by tMe Planning Commission. These nineteen items are recommended by the Planning � Commission for CIB Comm�ttee consideration as the core of the 1978 project rating sheet to be used by CIB Committee task forces. - � . P NN N CO M SSI N To be printed an mai e aroun pr , , a er e � POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Planning Commission hears and adopts evaluation procedures based on recommendations from the Cap�tal Allocation Policy Committee of the Rlanning Commission. ) � � � � � . � 56 � SAINT PAUL LONG-RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET COMMITTEE ` TASK FORCE PROJECT RATING SHEET FIGURE 11 � • PROJECT NAME: OPERATSNG DEPARTMENT: PROJECT NO.: ' TASK FORCE MEMBER RATING PROJECT: Score Rater's MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS Ran e Score A) District Council Priority Ranking: First Priority 10 I Second Priority 8 Third Priority 6 Fourth Priority 4 Fifth Priority 2 , Remainin Priorities 0 B) Departmental Priority Classification C-Critical 4 to 10 V-Valuable 4 to 8 (Top of score range is appropriate B-Beneficial 4 to 6 � unless classification qiven seems D-Desirable 1 to 3 ina ro riate) - ueetionable � e implementation by the CIB Comanittee and have budget allocations approved by the City Council � (If NOT, score zero) 2 to 10 D) Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Yes 6 to 10 Partial 2 to 5 (Plannin Commission Determination) No � � E) Conformance with Capital Allocation Policies Yes 6 to 10 (Strategy Policies A, C, D, E, M & N) Partial 2 to 5 (Plannin Commission Determination) No � F) Project is identified in the Planning Conanission's Recommended Ca ital Im rovement Pro ram (If NOT, score zero) 6 to 10 1 G) Project Will Serve Citywide Population 7 to 10 Several Neighborhoods 3 to 7 One Nei hborhood 0 to 3 H) Project Will be Utilized All Year Round 7 to 10 1 Five to Eleven Months 3 to 7 Four Months or Less 0 to 3 I) Project's Useful Life Expectancy 30 or More Years 7 to 10 11 to 29 Years 3 to 7 4 to 10 Years 0 to 3 � 3 Years or Less � J) Project will be used jointly by inter/intra- overnmental entities (If NOT, score zero) 6 to 10 K) Project will NOT duplicate other available public or � rivate facilities (If DUPLZCATION, score zero) 4 to 10 L) Zf project encouraqes rehabilitation or replacement of existing obsolete facilities and: Uses already-owned land - 7 to 10 � Requires acquisitions in conformance with Policy J - 3 to 6 Requires acquisitions not in conformance with Policy J - � M) Property Acquisitions in conformance with Policy J which have vacant land. (If NOT, seore zero) 6 to 10 � N) Project adequately programmed and phased 0 to 10 0) Public Environment, Aesthetics and/or Histiorical Preservation will be enhanced (If NOT, score zero) 4 to 10 1 P) Energy Consumption will be: Reduced 7 to 10 Increased-Minimum 4 to 6 Increased-Normal 1 to 3 Increased-Substantial 0 Q) Cost of Operation and/or Maintenance will: Be Reduced 5 to 10 , Not Change , 0 to 5 Increase � R) Tax Revenue to City will: Increase 5 to 10 Not Change 0 to 5 ' Be Reduced � � 5) Public Funds provide committed Private Greater than 1:6 8 to 10 1� Capital leveraging in the following ratios: 1:3 to 1:6 4 to 8 � 1:1 to less than 1:3 1 to 4 •� � ,—. T) City fundinq will earn share of available Federal/ � St3te/Private rant or non-cash credit (If NOT, score zero) 6 to 10 M U) Rater's general appraisal of project 6 to 10 N � O TOTAL SCORE 0 to 210 � PROJECT NOTES: c7 J� � � ! FIGURE 12: PLANNING COMMISSION EVALUATION SHEET . � � , (Under development as of March, 1978 � for later distribution as an addition to this appendix. ) � � � � � � r � t � i 58 � (Pages 59 and 60 reserved for later use) � , 8.0 (APPENDIX) � MT�CELLANEOUS SUPPORTING INFORMATION � ' , RE D N C PIT L LL C TI N 1 NG M I EN S IB ND DBG FUNDS, �979-1982 � � � � � � 1 � r � � � � � 61 t - MEMO REGARDING 1978 CAPITAL ALLOCATION . � 81 . , CITY OF SAINT PAUL ' INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUI�i DATE: November 17, 1977 T0: Mayor George Latimer � t FROM: James Bellus, Planning Administrator � RE. Capital and Community Development Program Allocation Polic�es In early 1977 the Pl�nning Commission and City Council adopted similar � versions of ca�ital expenditure policy for the 1978 budget process. ' The title of the adopted document is "Policies for Evaluating 1978 Capital , Expenditure Proposals". Most of the policies were unquantified, therefore, not measurable, therefore, largely immune to analysis. This is not atypical of policies; evaluation of their effectiveness is often difficult. Policy to be Evaluated � One adopted policy however, was quantified and its impact measurable. � This is Policy B1 ,� which stated that "Municipal capital resources allocated to residential improvement will be distributed in the following proportions: Area Proposed Allocation % of City Area � Conservation I 5� - 15% 27.5� Conservation II 10% - 25q 22•�°d � Improvement I 10% � 30% 33.0% Imrpovement II 20q - 40% 10.5q Improvement III 5% - 15% 7.0� � These five categories come from the "Residential Improvement Strategy" (RTS). The policy was a conscious attempt to accomplish residential improvement according to the rationales and objectives of the RIS. The � proposed allocation percentages are ranges that seemed appropriate based on the kinds of needs and amount of city land area in each category. Basically, the feeling was that capital resources in support of resjdential ' improvement should tend to flow toward• Conservation II, Improvement I and Improvement II areas. This idea was consistent with the rationale of the kIS, which emphasized containment of blight/conservation of existing housing stock. � Analysis ' Whether the proposed allocation ranges were reasonable or not, they were , not entirely followed in the 1978 budget-making process. The table attached, entitled, "1978 Adopted Capit�l Expenditures Analyzed by Residential � Improvement Strategy (RIS) Condition Categories" presents figures showing what condition areas 1978 capital allocations favor. A summary is given below: � � See Appendix A for a copy of Poli��y�,�@1 and its attendant rati�onale. e n '�+�r"� , � -2- , , SUMMARY OF 1978 CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS BY THE TYPE OF LAND USE BENEFITED � Actual 1918 Allocation in Support of Residential � of Residential � Allocation � of % of Recanmended Residential Total RIS Ca�egory 6� Policy B1 Amount Allocation A11ocation ' Conservation I 5� - 15� $ 1 ,567,770 18.12% Conserva�io� I� 10� - 25� 777,590 8.98� Improvement I 10% - 30% 1 ,555,410 17.97% � Improvement II 20% - 40% 1 ,678,185 19.39% Improvement III 5� - 15q 3,075,505 35.54� , , Tb6.� 19.10� , � of Total Remainder by Gat�gpry Amount 1978 Allocatior # RR, Indu�. , Insti�ut. , Canmer. 12,921 ,522 28.50% Ci�ywid� 23,701 ,571 52.30� � Total 1978 Capital A11ocation $45,277,5533 100.00% Results , The preceding table, when compared to adopted 1978 Policy B1 , demonstrates that the policy was not followed for 1978. Amounts allocated to support of RIS categories Conservation I and Improvement III were higher than , suggested by policy; the amount allocated to Conservation II was too low. Improvement I and II allocations were within ranges suggested by 1978 Policy 611 � Additionally, the preceding table demonstrates the relative level of capital allocations in support of residential and other land uses. rAs can be seen from the table above, the major problem seems to be over- allocation to Improvement III areas. Adopted policy clearly specified a range, although a flexible range, for allocations in support of each � condition category. For Improvement III areas, the range was 5� - 15%. Actual allocatiqn was dlmost 36% of all capital allocated in support af residential areas. � itywi e as a category includes $2.135 million in programs whose actual , expenditure locations cannot be determined ahead of time. E.g. , residential loan and grant program for rehab, 1978 ITAs, Urban Homesteading. ' 3 Total does not include most'CD funds for contracted services, social programs, mi cs ellaneous (see 1978 proposed capital budget, p. 9). ' 63 ' -3- � � Recomnendations � Probably the first action to be taken is to re-examine Policy B1 and its rationale and see if it should be chan�ed. Then, some mechanism needs � to be built into the budgeting process which checks at various points on how well this and other adopted policies are being adhered to in the budget process. , Since the Planning Division has lead responsibility for policy development, the Planning Division could be responsible for accountability in this � regard. However, the City Council ultimately adopts the capital/CD budget and should be the party most interested in ensuring, that, budqets it adopts are consistent with policy it also adohts. Therefoh�, �perfiaps the Council would wish to arrange some sort of policy monitoring mechanism as part � of budget processes. ' My suggestion would be that you discuss with Council President Sylvester or Finance Manac�ement and Personnel Committee Chairperson Butler an ap�ropriate course of action in this regard. � In whatever manner the necessary monitoring is accomplished, it should be done. Adopting policy is a rather meaningle�ss exercise without ,it. In the case of Policy B1 , policy implementation is important as a key � to implementation of the "Residential Improvement Strategy" . A Note on Methodology , The attached tables show distributions of a proposal 's total 1978 budgeted cost. The distributions are made to the type of land use the proposal ' will serve and are based on land use in the area of the proposal and character of the proposal itself. All distributions are admittedly best guesses, and totals in any land use category could change a bit depending upon how the impact of a particular proposal is viewed. ` � More importantly, several budgeted 1978 proposals have been put into the "citywide" category for lack of locational information. Those proposals � are programs whose specific imQact depends upon who applies to participate in the program. The principal examples are: R- 70 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Loan Program $ 500,000 � R- 71 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Grant Program 1 ,000,000 R- 706 Refusal Policy 300,Q00 R-XXX CD IV ITAs 285,000 � R- 68 Urban Homesteading 50,000 $�,�66� If, for example, this $2.135 million were to go equally to Conservation II, , Improvement I, and Improvement II areas - as is a likely possibility - then only the Improvement III category would fall outside Policy B1 at 28.53� of total 1978 residential allocation. , If inembers of your staff wish te discuss aspects of this memo in more detail , I suggest you ask them to contact Gregory Haupt, of this Division, , at extension 4513. • cc: Stout � Blees 64 � 8-2 TENTATIVE FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR CIB AND CDBG FUNDS, 1979-1982 . � 'lYOt�tio� llmdin9 Coewitsents for Approv�A proj�cb Utilizing Futun Te�ts' CtB BO,YDING A(R'HORSTY NOnie! Tage Log � loql Prior 197� Propoe�d Pro Munb�r Nusber Pr�eet Nene CoiC Apprvpriatiom p°��d P�opo�ed Propo�eA � �F'�' 1979 1980 1981 1yA2 JO 5-300 .DiseaseC 3had� Tce� Reaqv�l 1,900,000 �G 5-44 Ciewide Tne Plintinq Proqza� 1lruwal Proqr�a 2,000,000 (625,000) (625,G00) (500,000) . (500,000) � C-56 Nillovs pss�rw Aeq�lsitlon Compl�tton 237,000 317,000 D�fer 90,000 1� t-�3 Como Park Cons�zvatory Structural . T13,750 23,250 2Zp,ppp Svppose Renovation 21 C-36 Grovaland Reueation bclfool G�Addition 403,000 73,000 D70,000 50,000 , (ISD62S) l9 C'79 NaYden Ne1qhL !=�e�}� y�pra�����nt 731.099 164.099 270.pOp 76 C-D7 NortA-Dal• R�c. Cenbr f!h llork 298,137 7SB,137 10,000 ' ?2 t-t0 , po■eetolt Gye 1lddit�pn i 61b Uork 117.000 ]98.500 94,000 55,000 28 t-36 Prosperity Ne1yAL IMe. C�nCer �{�t� Nork 3�3,900 263,800 e0,ppp 16 C-3S Caa� c Duluth A�c. C�nf�r Site ilork I1t,26� - I97,2�i{ 135,000 � C-59 Tilden School Sit� D�wlepw�nt 125,000 ' 10,000 p�l�r QS,� C-�2 Hiller�st R�c. Cenbz Gy�11AA;elp� � {23,500 23,500 peLer 123,000 27T,000 tite Dewlopment , 15 C-51 Nttle Creek Patk INeenstruction (City'• 130,000 -o- 5,000 10,000 shaze) ' 95,000 C-53 Harriet Ialand lo�t Marin� p�wlops�nt- .�16,000 90,000 Phase I � . af�z 798,000 358,000 � �< C-58 Lrn+er Hidd�n ralls fit� Wo�lelaent 160,000 _o- 15,000 (Rer,ulseA to receive qraat avard ot 51�5,000) C-50 Cherok�e fk. Co�[ort ffjtlon i lN�nt. lldg. 158,000 13,000 Defer ]05,000 �3 5-80 Rellogg Pla:a p�p�lopMnt 100,000 -p� 100,000 1 C-72 Conscruction o!llr�St�tlon �1� 650,000 65,000 Daf�t SD,000 535,000 ' R-d5 op�fcan for Vartoos 2npes�etlani 81,000 Annvel proaram Deter 81,000 71 R-60 Downtwm peopl� lbwr 6r�tw (C1ly'• 5,600,000 150,000 110,000 (2.320,000) f2,370,000) � shaie) �4 E-56 NSdbloek Liqhtinq-Cit�vlde Upqr�diqq- Annual Progras 60,000 (60,000) (60,000) 1978 (V-0577) 160,000) f60,Q00) �� C-7S Dubli: Uorks Dal� 8!. Eypip�nL C�tag�- 1,682,000 -0- 17,0p0 (115,000) (1,022,000) (�78,000) 1 Deslqn ivndinq latrnd�a tp invlu8� . oarlous City ptepp�ali) 5-67 ResidenGi�l St. Yaviny prpyrurlq79 Annpsl p=oq=a� �a. (1,750,000) (941,000) (P-0713) (2.200.000) (2,ZG0,000) � 5-63 les�idential SL. Liyht►nq Proyea�•ll79 11�u�y�1 Progru -o- N-06i7) (250�000) (150,000) (�00,000) (300,000) 73 5-11 7th Placs Troqra�e Desw��nL 6lyalita- 300.000 96.000 tion inqrovesnb on Beh i 9th 27t,000 � 76 5-S� Pedestrim Ra�p� tor tM II�nAieappad- Annuai City�+id!-1978 (P-Og�l) *�r� SOr000 (50,000) (50.000) (50.000) (50.000) 69 5-59 Grand Av�. ir�fxie Siqnal��W,l� 6t. to 6,500 -p- 6,500 Snelling Aw. (1�1063A) � 70 S-6G Czae�d Aw, ir�ftie Siqn�lrDal� St. to ],tpp Snelling 7�w, ('1�3063D) 'a 2.200 71 E-61 Cltyvide Tntfic Siyn�lr197t (T•1p6�G) �1,300 M��+1 pm9=� �6,300 (65,000) (65,000) �65,OOp) (GS,OUO) � 60 S-SI Milson A�n. Llqhting-]euth St. to Meltniqht �5,000 _o- � rtd• fV-OR53) �5,000 ���. tl.11.R. Unallocated Aesero�, rot �ee�srinq w�rA of lpr ��Liyetlon D1Q� ' -0- 278,000 -a aoo.000 �oo.000 �s��� ��,�?� f�I�+G����9 6,500,000 6.SOO,OJO 6,500,000 D,957,000 3,�15,000 � ANi7_IFATED lUNILS Np�{' pRDGp�Ml�p tOTAL M�1:2ES A>ITICIPATED -d' -�" -�' 2_5<7,000 �,0:5,p00 . 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6.SOO,OJO ' ' 65 . ' Tentative Fundtnq Co�.itlKnts for Approved Projects Vtilizing Putura lean' MMt�tVNIYY DEVEIAPlL'�T BtACK f:kAUT.�. Monla� IC04) (CDS) (CU6) ICU7) (CD81 � Paqe Log Total lrlor 1976 Pcopo�ed Propos�a Piopo�ed yroposo Numb�z Number Project Nam� Cost �ppropriations ewcer 1979 1980 1981 7ga2 30 5-100 Diseasad Shed� Ttee R�moval Annual Drogtem � 1,000,000 f1,750,000) (1,500,000) (1,250,000) (7,00�,0�� � 30 S-4C Ciiyvide Trse Plaatinq Pxogz�a Annual Drogzam 1,000,000 .1625,000) (675,000) � (500,0001 (500,0 25 �-41 Marshall-�tebst�r Slt� Dsvelop�nant 1,]2�,300 1,119,100 �105,000 13 H-36 Ro'Jent tontrol-Citywid� Mnwl Proqtam 25,000 (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (25,OG� 77 C-1� Grchsrd Playgco�md Bldq. i_Si:� Drvs3op. 973,000 183,000 018,000 (172,000) (Site.rork grant appli�d foz) ]5 C-13 Milder Playground Improv�ments 345,193 260,193 . 105,000 37 A-70A Reaovel o! Pazardous i V�e�n� Bldg�. 1lnnual Progran 1lppsoved 11ct. (A.J�.) (A.A.) (A.A.) (A.A.� ]7 R-70 Rehab. Loen� tor Own�rOee�pied Mnu�l Pzograa 500,000 (500,0�0) (500,000) (500,000) (50C�,U0 � Residential Steucturs� - � 37 R-71 Rehab. Grmts for Am�r-Occnpi�d hnnual Progzam �1,000,000 (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (],000,00� Residential Stsvctur�s 37 R-708 Retusal Poliryt Owner-OccupieA Annual P:oqraa 300,000 (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300.000) Resid�ntSsl Sttvcturu � � �� � 38 R-YL Rice/Marim Phaw IIs Di�Yriet � 1,900,000 1,200,000 700,000 �� � � ll R-13 South of Fron! Bousing Rede�elopmant •,]99,000 300,000 900,000 � 282,000 2,069,500 84),500 33 R-xx Completion of CD SIS IdentlliW 1,506,000 1I5,000 1,121,000 TreaCm�nt Araas � � 34 R-xxx Id�ntili�d Tr�e�rnt 1lreas, CDIV: i,ees,000 -o- ZB5,000 1,200,000 , Dedlceted Fund JS R-77 Loens for Aehab. of Co�sreisl Stnc2uz�s l�nnual Progran 500,000 (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) �2 R-68 Orban Honieiteadinq� Citwide Annwl Progrsm 50,000 (50,000) (50.000) (SO,OOOj (50,00� 3e p-7] Loans for Rehab oE No�rOwnez-OCCUpied Mnual Proqram �1lpproved Aet. (A.A.) (A.A.) (A.11.) (A.I�. Reeiden[ial StracGUres . � - � 39 R-29 Completion ot North St. Stanialeus 1,100,000 -0- 363,000� �' ' �37,000 ' � Development Ares 50 S-37 Dayton i�ve. Street Pavinq 125,000 -0- 125.000 _ 62 5-66 Nestmini�ter SewerMeryl�nd to Larpentaur 300,000 -0- 300,000 15-1612) B3 H-B Nilder/Thomae-M1� Senior Ciilz�ns Pzog. 11nnu�1 Ptogran 32,000 (32,00�) (31,000) (32,000) f32,00� B1 N-22 Houeing Info. OEfics wltii S�coneraeta Mnual Yroqras 140,000� '(140,000) (140,000) (140,0001 (100,000) (lncludes R-23 i M-13) . � � 62 R-�< Hlstoric Hill Diat. Ar�� qousing 150,000 -0- 150,000 � Resotration s Aehab Wwlving Fund . 84 N-31 Nomen'n Adwut�u Em�rq�ncy SA�ltez i 71.000 D6,000 35,000 � � AehaD of Childzan'a Playraam e� -- Citlsen Perticipation Annual P�ogrm 300,000 (]00,000) (300,000) (300,0001 (300,Q0� SVBTO7aLs i'ENTATIK FUNDING COlWI1'l�NTS 9.�51�,000 7,613,OOQ' 7,041,500 5,�41,500 4,34i3Opn Anticipated lbni�a not Progr�mME -o- 1,762,000 783,500 2,780,500 7,478,0(xi � 85 1978 NDV Losn paym�nt 1,100,000 �00,000 800,000 B5 froqr�m Operation and Support Servicea 3,050,000 � 3,825,000 2,375,000 2,37S,0o0 2,775,on0 ei Con!lnqancy - 196,000 (300,000) (300,OOC) (DOpippp)� _�p,00p TOTAN MONIES ANTICIP7IYED . 13,500;000 12,500,000 10,500,000� 10,S00,P00 30,500.G0� � � , 66 ' i f8.3 INFORMATION ON TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 1 Tax Increment Financing 1 . Redevelopment projects authorized under the Minnesota Municipal Housing ' and Redevelopment Act, Chapter 487 laws of 1947 (M.S. 462.411-462.711 ) may be financed through sale of redevelopment authority bonds whose debt service is wholly or partly paid from revenues of redevelopment projects (462.551 ) ; or may be financed through redevelopment authority � bonds whose debt service is wholly or partly paid from tax increments (464.585) ; or may be financed through general obligation bonds of the governing municipality, debt service for which bonds is wholly or partly paid � from tax increments_ (462.589 (9) and 464.585, Subdivision 4). 2. Industrial development projects authorized under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 297 laws of 1967 (M.S. 474) , may be , financed through sale of revenue bonds whose debt service is payable only from revenues of the projects (474.10, Subdivision 1 ) ; however, tax increments may be set aside to pay for lease insurance or to build a , bond reserve (414.10, Subdivision 2 and Subdivision 4). 3. Development districts authorized under the Minnesota Development District � Act, Chapter 485 laws of 1974 (M.S. 472 A) may be financed through sale of general obligation bonds,"for whose payment tax increments shall be pledged and used to reduce or cancel the taxes otherwjse required to be extended for that purpose,. . ." (472A.06). 1 4. Industrial development districts created by the Port A�thority in accordance with Chapter.812 laws of 1975 (M.S. 458.191 ) may be financed , through sale of either general obligation bonds pledging full faith and credit of the municipaiity in which the authority is located (M.S, 458,193) or revenue bonds pledging debt service only from revenues (M.S. 458,194). The general obligation bonds may be serviced from tax increments ' (M.S. 458.192, Subdivision 11 ). , Development Districts Development districts may be declared under two statutes, either M.S, 472 A, � the Minnesota Development District Act, or M.S. 458.191 , authorization to port authorities to declare industrial development districts. 1 . M.S. 472 A, the Minnesota Develo�ment District Act Cha ter 485 Laws of ' 19 T s ct permits municipa �es to esta sh deve opment str cts ancTimprove them according to a development program. This endeavor is financed through issuance and sale of general obligation bonds retired 1 from tax increments, to the extent possible. 2. M.S. 458.191 , Industrial develo ment Districts. This statute permits � port aut orit�es to esignate ndustr a eve opment districts whose improvement is financed through issuance and sale of either general obligation or revenue bonds. The general obligation bonds are backed , by the full faith and credit of the municipality in which the port authority is located. Repayment is by an authority levy, from earnings and income of the authority, or from tax increments yielded by the industrial development district. Reve�ue bonds are repaid ' soley from revenues. 67 � CREDITS ' . � PLANNING COMMISSION *Martha Norton, Chairman *David McDonell *Liz Anderson Jean McGinley � James Bryan *Deborah Montgomery *Carolyn Cochrane *Jane A. Nelson Harold L. Feder Joseph Pangal Sam Grais Catherine Piccolo � Carolyn Grittner Hard�,y Stegemoeller *Glen Hanggi Gayle W. Summers **Otto H. Humner Adolf T. Tobler � *Nelsene Karns Robert F. Van Hoef *Mertyce Mayne *Ad hoc Capital Allocation Policy Comnittee ' **Chairman, Ad hoc Capital Allocation Policy Committee A� INISTRAT ON AND James . Be us, anning A ministrator , POLICY DIRECTION William Q. Patton, Community Development Administrator Ken Dzugan, Principal Planner � AD HOC CITIZENS Scott Feyen � COMMITTEE ASSISTANCE Howard Kinney David McDonell Bob Rogge � RESEARC ND PLANNI Tamsen ic inger, anner Gregory Haupt, Planner ' Robert Kessler, Community Development Analyst Gregory Blees, Budget Analyst ' � ' , � Preparation of this report was financed in part through , a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 6 8 , ' � POLICIES INDEX ' ThTS index identifies major concepts which contribute to the policy statements in this document. Page numbers without parenthesis indicate that the concept is part of a policy ' statement on that page; enclosed page numbers indicate discussion of the concept. _ - --- - _ ' /� "A" areas (13-15), (18). (20), 20 J ,�oint use 31 acquisition of property 27 L leveraging 27, (28) � B "B" areas (13-15), (78), (20), 20 low/moderete income (14, (38), 39 balanced capitai allaation (24-25), 26 M matching funds 32 bond issues (5), (7), (23), 32 Munlcipal State Aid (6-7), 32 budgetin9 by pro�ect phase 32 N neighborhood improvement ectiVlty (11), (20), (25-26), 26 � (,` "C" areas (13-15) nelghborhood revttallzation 20, 21, 24, 29. (99-42), 41 capiWl lmprovdnent budget (1), (3-4), (25) nelghborhood strategy area 41, (41-42) capltal i�rovement program 32 Q operatton/maintenance ezpendttures (3-4) , CDBG funding (3). (6), 31, 32, (31-42) 39, 41, 42 P parking fac111ties 32 CIB funding (7), 32 Port Authority (21-23) citywlde allaations (25), 26 prevtous funding (25). 27 ' cammerciel/retail reuse or reviWlizatlon (23), 24 prlvate retnvestment 20 _ caimunity development plan (1), 42. (42-43) R recycling princiDal a�d tnterest 34 county e1d (6-7), 32 rehabilltatlon Donds 32, 34 � p debt service and other costs fram tax tncrement bond sale proceeds 33, 34 return on tnvestment 27. (28) detertorated housing (12), (15), (19), 20 $ service system (16-18), (20), 21 (22), 24, 26, 21 Downtown People Mover 29 slums/bitght (37), 39, (41) ' downtown development (21-23) speclflc banding authority 32 E econanlc development (21-23), 24, 26, 27 subsiQy capital (16-18), 20, 24 econanic stability (11) substential housing (12). (15) � eliglble CDBG activities (38), (44-52) swimming pools 31 exlsting Pac111t1es' needs 27 system support (16-17), 26 F fiscal constraints (6), 31 T tax abatement 29 , fringe areas (12). (14-15), (18) tax increment 33. 34 fund sources (5), 32 tax increment revenue pro,�ecttons 33 (� General obligatton bonds 32. 34 tax yteld 28 , geographical component (72) trees 29 H human services programs 31 V urban renewal 32 � 7mprovement activity component (il , (16 , (19) urgent needs 39. (41) , lmprovement areas (13-15), 20 use of inetro, state, federal funds 32 increased operating/maintenance expense 31 W Water Pollutlon Abatement bonds 32 ITA 21, 29, (42) ' , ' ' 69 ' GLOSSARY (continued from front inside cover) , Human service programs: As referred to in this document, the term human service programs is defined as activities not traditionally the responsibility of the City which provide services to improve individuals' socioeconomic condition. Examples of these activities are: senior citizen programs, day care � programs, netghborhood health care centers, subsidized food service, legal, drug, financial and employment counseling. (Examples of human services traditionally provided by the City include: comnunity libraries, neighborhood and comnunity recreation centers, the public health office, housing and information counseling.) , � Ident f ed Treatment rea ITA : A specified area within the City of Saint Pau which has been identified by the appropriate district council or neighborhood group, the Planning Commission, and the City Council for the purpose of encouraging ' property owners to rehabilitate their properties and to bring substantlal improvement to the area in accordance with an approved ITA plan. � J Joint-use facility: A facillty operated and/or maintained by the city with one or more other public , or private agencies (for example, Independent School District M625, Ramsey County, Port Authority, United Way, Wilder Foundation.) L Leveraging: In general, use of non-equity capital to increase return to equity. In municipal government, refers to use of municipal capital as an inducement to commitment , of private sector capital in a development project. M Municipal capital: Capital monies apprapriated by City Council in the Capital Improvement Budget. , Municipal State Aid (MSA): State gasoline tax (principally) dollars returned to a municipality as a grant for use in maintenance and constructian/reconstruction of certain state-designated roads (called the "MSA routes"). ' N Neighborhood Strategy Area: The term us�d by HU throughout the CD96 regulations to indicate an area or areas selected by the applicant and designated in its three-year Community Developnent and Housing Plan for a program of concentrated community developnent activities. In addition, the term "Neighborhood Strategy Area Program" (NSA Pro9ram) is used to indicate a demonstration program sponsored by HUD to pro- , vide local govenments directly with funds for rehabilitation in an area desig- nated for concentrated cortmunity develoqnent activities. P Po cy: A guide ine or rule ntended to de ermine or aid in determining decisions. ' Private sector: The non-governmental portion of the econort�y. "Private sector" and "public sector" are the two 9eneral divisions of all economic activity and decision-making. R Return on investment): Refers to the profit on an investment. For example, the return on investment , 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. S Sweat equ ty: Investment of time and effort in a property or project as partial replacement for capital investment. For example, a house constructed by the homeowner might , have relatively little dollar investment but a large investment of time and work. '� Tax abatement: The act or practice of limiting the future amount of real estate tax to be paid on T a property. Occasionally used by municipal legislatures as an incentive for , development characterized by some public be�efit. Three-Year Caimunity Development Plan: A plan required by HUD as part of St. Paul's Year V (1979) Community Development Block Grant Application. The plan must identify St. Paul's major community development needs and specify St. Paul's strategy ' for meeting them with CDBG and other funds over the period 1979 through 1981. U UCIPBP: See Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Pwcess, below. ' UDAG: See Urban Development Action Grant, below. Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Proeess (UCIPBP): The formal process used by the City of St. Paul annually to arrive at a Capital Improvement Budget and a Capital Improvement Program. ' Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) Pragram: A M�D grant program enacted as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 which supplements the CDBG Program. The UDAG Program is to assist economic revitalization of "distressed" c9ties. ' �3 �,�.. �3 , � aQ, ' � � � �.�. � �r'''"y . ,�� � Q i . .q� , o-Y. x� 3- �6-7g � ,� 4' . ti . �'�C�► �-�� �� �P I • j . �o�e.. � . . , � �;;: t�; ���� ► ,•. r� � a R;�n.r.. 1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL �n�����'�' � � �;. INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM '� ' DATE: March 7, 1978 _ _____ - T0: Ms. Rosalie Butler hairperson Personnei , Financ a d Management Commfttee FROh1: Gregory Haupt RE: Council Ad ian f "St. Pau1 Capital Allocation Policy 1979, 1980, . 1. I have had ta delay printing of the capital policy docur�ent pending publication, receipt and review of final regulations on the Community Development Block Grant Program. The regulations arrived in the mail Monday, March 6. Updated printed copies ofi the capital policy docu- ment should be available Monday, March 13. My recommendation would be to put cansideration of the document on the Council agenda for any convenient subsequent date. 2. Depending upon how rapidly the Commission acts, Council may have the opportunity to incorporate Sect�on 7.1 (previausly under development} . in its consideration of the capital allocation document. The Commission is to review SECtion 7.1 at its March 10 meeting. Seven copies of the material provided them are attached. I will notify you Friday of the outcome of Planning Cammission review of Section 7.1 , 1 3. In looking again at Policy�during development of Section 7.1 , the Capital Allocation Policy Cornmittee of the Commission felt that policy to be both indefinite and inflexible. The committee's concern was that the policy oversimplified factors which contribute to a decision on whether to rehabilitate, expand, or replace a public facility, particularly a building. The committee asked staff to propose aTtern- ative wording for Council consideration. Committee chairman Humr�er and mer�ber McDonell were asked to provide review of the proposed wording. They request that you consider bringing the following change before Council (copies attached): POLICY I WITHIN SERVICE SYSTEM CATEGORIES, REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES TAKE PRIORITY GVER EXPANSION OF THE SERVICE SYSTEM, EXCEPT WHERE ECONOMY OR EFFICIENCY FACTORS, OR PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, INDICATE THAT SUCH REHABILITATION OR REP�ACEMENT IS INADVISABLE. cc: John Connelly Ken Dzugan Dave McDonell Jim Bellus Tarr�ny Aichinger Martha Norton J Greg Blees Otto Hummer i _ i _ � _ A �' Proposed Policy I to replace existing Policy I on page 27 of "St. Paul �, Capital Allocation Policy 1979, 1980, }981". POLICY I WITHIN SERIIICE SYSTEM CATEGORIES, REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES TAKE PRIORITY OVER EXPANSION OF THE SERUICE SYSTEM, EXCEPT WHERE ECONOMY QR EFFICIENCY FACTORS, OR PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, INDICATE THAT SUCH REHABILITATION UR REPLACEMENT IS INADVISABLE.