The URL can be used to link to this page

268887 WHI7E - CITV CLERK . 1 � {[� PINK - FINANCE COIIIICII ��,�� BLUERY - MAYORTMENT GITY OF� SAINT PAUL File NO. � !�{,? �- -� Council Resolution � . Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee y Date WHEREAS, The C ty Council deems it necessary to provide guidance in the preparation of the recommended Capital Improvement Budqet used to finance City developme t; WHEREAS, The C ty Planning Commission has promoted development of, reviewed, approved and r eommends policies for guiding capital expenditure as set forth in the report Policies for Evaluating 1978 Capital Expenditure ProposaTs"; and WHEREAS, The F nance Committee of the City Council has reviewed and amended said report; a d WHEREAS, The F"�nance Committee commends the Planning Commission for its effort and recommends the report to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby ad pt the report "Policies for Evaluating 1978 Capital Expenditure Proposals" for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Budqet and Program Process in 1977. � � I i COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler Hozza In Favor Hunt Levine � _ Against BY Roedler Sylvester �° AP� 1 2 1977� Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Cour�crY:"' ate Certifie��Isassed Co ecceta,ry BY � R Approv d y Mayor: Date � • Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY Qu�usHE� APR 2 3 1977 � '� ' ~ ".- ` CITY 4F SAINT PAUL r �' �� / G OFFICE OF THE.CITY COIINGIL /L/�, �::`) �t.lY?�f`.•7 � 7]':�:'Y]i?. f . - ' . .�yt�,+ � �,�_, Dote : April 7, 1977 ��_ COMMITTEE REP4R"t" TO : Saint Paut City Council � - FROM � �ommittee OCt FINANCE, MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL ROSALIE BUTLER , choirmdn, makes i`he folfawing . r�port on C.F. (� t}rdinance . � [� Reso(ution � � Other � � - _ T �7LE : Goals and Policies, Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process. � The Committee considered the above document, now titled. "Policies for Evaluating 1978 . Capital Expenditure Proposals" and at its � � meeting on Apri1 4, 1977 recommended that it � � , be approved, as amended. � � CTTY FiALL SEVENTH FLOOR S�l4INT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 ,��,��' , •`��'�' � . ' '�r� � POLICIES FOR EVALUATING � 1978 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS � � � • � • � � � , � � � � �� .��`�� • 1 ,,. �' • '-:••- � � �� ' ! � , � � �� ' �� . • �' ' �� 1 , � j �� i • • ' • i � � ` 1 � :� i�� 1 � � • 1 -,.. �� i 1 1 ' DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING SAINT PAUL CITY PLANNING ' SAINT PAUI, MINNESOTA , POLICIES FOR EVALUATING � 1978 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS � � A STAFF WORKING PAPER 77-150-SNlP-01 APRIL 1977 IAPPROVED BY ST. PAUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 11 , 1977, RESOLUTION 77-7 � FINANCE, MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL COMNIITTEE ' OF THE ST. PAUL CITY COUNCIL APRIL 4, 1977 � , � � � ' ' , � ' DEVELOPMENT PROGRAf�1h1ING � ST. PAUL CITY PLANNING 421 WABASHA STREET ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � � TABLE OF CONTENTS i 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii . � PROCESS FLOW CH R iv � ENT TIVE C LEND R � PUR�OSE INTRODUCTION � � 2 ' CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS � 4i C I L LL C I N IN CONTEXT � GOAL: STRONG, 6 � STABLE NEIGHBORNOODS � GENERAL POLICY STATEME T 6 GOAL: STRONG � $ � LOCAL ECONQMY E L C S E EN 8 , CONSTRAINT: FISCAL 9 AND SOCIAL CONCERNS , ISCAL CONCERNS 9 14 ' ' � ' � ii � � � � : _ P I I � � -. , , POLIGY A1 : LIFE S ET HE LTH 15 POLICY A2: PR�SERV TI N O EXIS ING U L:IC F CILI IES 15 LICY A3: SU P R ING ACILITIES 15 , CY : LE I N IT NTS ' 16 COP�MENTARY 16. POLICY A5: EL T EE REPLI�C MENT 16 C : W N S 16 tPOLTCY B1 : CAPITAL ALLOCATION 17 TO RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT COMM�NTARY 17 , L : YE S E L EE 2p COMMENTARY 20 P LICY C : ECQN I DE LOP ENT 21 � COh1MENTARY 21 POLICY D : MAINTENANCE PERAT NG COSTS 22 COMMENTARY 22 P LICY D : HUMAN SERVICES ALLOCATIONS 22 ' LICY D3: JOINT- SE FACILITIES 22 E : E N E E �3 VERSUS RESID�NTIAL DEV�LORM�NT , . CpMMENTARY 23 ' N . POLICIES F R LL C I N 25 CD YEAR IV BLOCK GRANT Fl1NDS ' A SELECTED PL N BR EFS 32 � AP �NDIX G: RELATED FORMS 37 � APRENDI D: SUPPORTING INFORMATION 39 52 , C�R�QITS 56 , GL05SARY B�ACK COVER , _ � ' iii A ONIFIED CAPI:AL iMPROVE'MENT PRO'uRAM AIv� BUIhiET PROCESS FOR THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL � Process Steps � ITY STAfF SEVyNTEEN DZSTRiCTS PLF.NNING �� COUNCZL Reeo�eadition COMMZSSION MAYOR STAFF of "GOals i . Offiee o! City Planning 1. District Councils Policies for 2. Budget Dizector 2. Distzict Orgar:izations Capital Ra�ource . Community Development 3. Planning Coaanittees Allocation" . Couneil Staff ' Adoption-,of..... .. ..._, .... __--._....._.___ ._ .... . "Goals i � . .___.._ .. ._..__..__ . .. CIT . _.__ ..._.. __....___........ Policiaa for _ ._ . ' Capital Resouzce ,. � , Allocatioa",_ ..,. - .... .. _ _ ._......_ ._ . CZTI.^.EN . . - C3TY-OPERF4�:�SNG �. ; , . .. �.. � OTHER AGENCIES Projects :� ORGANIZATIONS � ,� �` �DEPARTMEh^:S � � � � � � Identif3td .. . . ' _ _ . 1. District Council• . 3. Fize•-_ 1. Quas:-City Agencies � .... . � ' : . �2: Police. � � �� . .... A. Port Authority 2. Citizen GrouQs. .. .. . _ 3. 3usiness Organizations 3. Pub1iS Works 8. School Diatrict " ' 4. Community Sezvices C. Board of water 5. Finance 6 Man�igement Services ' Commissioners ' fi. MHOU93�g b.Redevelopmant D. Civic Center Authority �� Autfiozity"� � � � ' � � � �- �• � 2. Governmental Units �: ..... . � � �� A. Metra Council .. ., _.. , .. .. . � . : . �;- , . ,. . ...,. ...... , ...;. ._. B. Metro Waste � � -� � � � � � � C. Metro Transit ' . < , _ . D. County of Rameey . _ '' � . - E. Minn. Highvay Dept. ' 3. Privnte Agencies _ .. __. _. __.. � �- � OF ICE OF CI?- Y PLANNZNG � - Planning, &_ ._ , . .. . _ . 1. City Planners ` ' Timing Cos��:iets ' 2:,�pezating•Bepartments & � , identifi�d . . _ Agencies , � ._ . ...� _ � : 3. Distiiet�PlAnners � __ ... ,. . 4.'Couneii 5taff PrOjeCt . . .. - '. OPz'RAT�NG._DEPAA:Pi�. &: . ;� . ... . , Phasinq aad 1. Department Staff ' Costing 2. District Planners �� Fundirtq-.Requect _. .... _ .... __ .... . . ._. -- ... .._. Decinion Makinq CZTIZEN ORGANZZATIONS � O�&RATING DSPF+R'�`.ENTS '" ' OTH�R XGENCIES � • Funding Re�uesta BUDGET�CIRECTOA � ' � . . . �`,.. , , ' Formallv Submitted ___.. .. . � PLANNING �� STAf'F�:ANALYSIS � � .,... - � . DISTRICT COUNCIL Pzoject' COl1�`tZSSION L-0ffice of City Plannir+a COUNCIL STAFP " ' Analysis RE�1IE'w 2. Sudget Officc P�Z� 3. Community Development _ ... . ,._ . _ . 4. Property Management 5. Hoesing s Redevelooment Auth. " _... .. ... . ,. ;, ".i:� � Aeco�nendations Transmitted 3UDGET DIRLCTOR DistrYbnte Requests to... . . .. . . .. .- . . .. . C'_B��COMt+,ITTEE � �.� . ..... . . . -. . . . .... ... Aopzopriate Task Force � Review Projects. COMMON:TY STREETS S RESIDENTIAL HUMAN Touz S�tes. ��-� � FACILITZES" - -� � � �- UTILITSES. .._._.,.. .. 6 ECONOMIC SER District Presentations. 'fASK TASK DEVELOPMENT ° TASX - � •- Consider Staff FORCE FORCE TASK FORCE FOACE '.�� , Analysia. 1. Repreaentativns 1. Representatives 1. Representativea 1. Representatives ' Priority Rate-PSOjects. from,seventeen fzom seventeen from seventeen froa+ seventeen Determine Fundinq districts dis£zicts' � � distriets. . . _,.. . ,. ,_ . districta Pziorities and 2. Two CZB Coaanittee 2. Two CZB Comaittee 2. Two C2B Committee 2. 1wo CIH Corimiittee °: _ Aecommendations. Members Membars Members Members � ' �� - Formulate Rpcommended ` ' . ' .. _ . Budget�-Uaihic� 'Task�.Fbrce � CZB COMMITTEE � � ��' - Pziozities t Reco�enda- � ' tions ' Aeview CIS Co�mittee Recotmnended Budqet i MAYOR'S SEt1I0R MANAGEMEA'T TEal7 COUNCZL STAFF Identify DisagraemenLs Consider C2B Co�ittee � Recommended Budget 6 Staf' Reeo�endations JSAYOR to Determine Mayor's Pzoposed Sudqet Consider Reeem�nenda- CITY COUNCIL ' tions and Adopt Budget 1 v Office of the Mayor Budget Seetion-11/15/76 , � TENTATYVE CALENDAR FOR 1977 UNZFIED CAPZTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & BUDGET PROCESS , ADOPTION OF GOALS AND POLICIES FOR C�PITAL RESOURCE ALLOCATiON 1) City staff working with district represer.tatives complete Fearuary 7, 1977 , draft of goals and policies. 2) Draft of goals and policies distributed to districts through February S Early Notification System. ' 3) Steering Committee of Planning Commission hold public hearing March 1 on goals and policies. 4) Planning Commission recomnends goals and policies to Mayor March 11 and City Council. ' S) City Council's Finance Commit*_ee reviews goais and policies. March 21 6) City Council a3opts "Goais and Policies for Caoital Resource April 12 � Allocation." 7) Adopted "Goals and Yolicies" distributed through Early Anril 14 Notification Syst=_r�. , PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING PROCESS ACTI'TiTIES � 1) Departr.ients and districts identify projects in preliminary ' form by May 2 2) Entities requesting project funding meet with appropriate May 8 to May 12 operating departments, planners and City staff to identify: a. Planning conflicts � b. Timing conflicts c. Relationship to goals and objectives d. Cost estimates. ' 3) Final submission date for foamally submitting project funding Jµne 1 requests tro City Budget Director. 4) Planning Commissioners review to determine requ�sted project s June 1 to June 23 conformance to the Comprehensive Plan and Adopted Goals ' anc� Policies Eor Canital Resource Allocation. 5) Task Force Budget Priorities 3nd Recommendations. Includes June i to Ju1y ?O bus tour, presentations by various citizen oraanizations, staff analysis, and project rating. , 6) CIB Committee funding priorities ar.d nroject recommendations August 1 to August 12 to the Mayor and City Council after reviewing task force recommendations and holding a public hearing. ' 7) Mayor's Senior Management Team Recommendations to Mayor August 15 to August 19 8) Mayor's Budget Priorities and Recommendations Augus*_ 15 to Auqust 19 ' 9) Mayor's Proposed Capital Improvement Budget P.eport Preparation August 22 to August 26 10) Mayor transmits report to City Council August 30 ' 11) City Council Public Hearing and Finance Comr�ittee Public Hearing - between September 1 to October 15 12) City Council adopts 1978 Capital Imprcvemer.t Program and � Budget by October 25, 19'7 13) Grant apolications are pra?ared by January 1, 1?78 ' Office of the Mayor-Budget Section January 14, 197i Prepared January 14, 1977 Revised January 24, 1977 � V ' PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION r � This document is to provide guidance to those individuals , who will be charged with making decisions during 1977 on allocation of St. Paul 's fiscal resources for 1978. , Elements of that guidance are: (1 ) Goals toward which the city is oriented; (2) Policies which tre city may follow in 1978 to help achieve those goals; and (3) Spe- , cific, and to some degree, specialized, recommendations regarding certain types of projects and certain types of funding. ' Individuals and groups who will weigh these goals, policies and recommendations in decisions during the course of the 1977-for-1978 budget process include citi- ' zen/neighborhood organizations, operating agencies of the city, the St. Paul City Planning Commission, task forces of the Capital Improvement Budge� Committee (and the ' Committee itself) , and the Mayor. At the end of the review process, the City Council will have the final decision as to whether proposals for local t ' capital and Community Development program expenditure, as submitted, meet the needs of the city's citizens. ' This material builds upon thoughts developed in an ear- lier document entitled "Goals and Policies for Capital Resource Allocation" (City planning Office: July 9, 1976) . , A fuller understanding of material presented here will be had through familiarity with "Goals and Policies for Capital Resource Allocation" . , � , ' ' 1 ' � 1 GOALS FOR CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS � ' Goals toward which St. Paul is oriented and committed must, to some degree, be assumed. Each citizen has ' personal goals which may or may not be similar to those of his neighbor; each neighborhood may have goals some- what different than goals held by other groups for their ' neighborhoods. City government capital resource allocation decisions ' should coincide with goals both of individuals and of neighborhoods. This is sometimes not possible because of differences among goals expressed by individual citizens and citizen graups on one hand, and because of resources , inadequate to address all expressed goals on the other. Goals for the 1977-for-1978 capital resources allocation ' proces�. will be essentially as in the previous budget cycle. The goals from the previous budget cycle were: 1 .To strengthen and stabilize neighborhoods in order to , . make them better places to live; and , 2.To strengthen the city's economic base in order to 1 provide jobs and services needed by the residents of the city. These goals are retained for the present capital alloca- ' tion process. The major change in this budqet cycle's approach to ' municipal capital resources allocation2 is to take previously-stated goals and add to them a strategy for achievement of the goals. That strategy is one of ' inducement and support of investment in neighborhoods and inducement and support of investment in economic develop- ment. ' This strategy has been expressed in past considerations of capital resources allocation policy. Discussion of ' public encouragement of investment is found in local government reports3 and is part of public deliberations. This is because of the close linkage between community well-being and strong and steady investment in it. ' ' ' ' 2 , � ' One further addition, besides that of a strategy state- ' ment, to previous budget cycle goals is strong concern for fiscal and social responsibility in capital resources allocation. Fiscal concern is a common thread in th� ' f�bric of local governmental decisions and is reasserted in many ways.4 Concern for fiscal responsibility has always been part of the capital resqurces allocation ' process; �'ormal recognition of constraints put on allocation decisio�s by fiscal limitations is simply being added to capital allocation goal statements in this budget cycle. Concern for social consequences of local , government action is likewise a longstanding part of municipal decision-making. , With addition of a statement of strategy and statements of significant areas of concern, previous goals have becom� general policy statements, which read as follow$: ' TO P.LLOCATE h1UNICIPAL CAPITAL R�SOLIRCES SO AS TO INDUCE AND SUPPORT, IN A FISCALLY AND $OCIALI.Y RESPONSIBLE MANNER, I (1 ) INUESTMENT IN NEIGHBORHOODS; AND ' (�) INVESTMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Each of these general policies is examined �n the sections beginning Qn paqe 6. ' � ' , ' � ' ' 3 , CAPITAL ALLOCATION IN CONTEXT t , Annual municipal expenditure divides itself into two ' parts, operat�ng/maintenance expenditures and capital expenditures. Operating/maintenance expenditures are those expenditures for salaries, supplies and material , utilities, and so on. They may be separated into three , types: (1 ) Operating/maintenance expenditures to continue existing government or government-contracte� services; (2) P�ew operating/maintenance expend�tur�r �-�r ' new services; and (3) Pdew operatinq/maintenance e��f �- ditures assc�ciated with additional public facili±��,: Capital expenditure also may be subdivided into three ' categories: (1 ) Capital expenditure to upgrade or ��- � � � place exist�ng munici�al facilities; (2) Capita� �x��- diture to create additional municipal facilities; ��`: ' . (3) Al.location of capit.al .for subsidy to non-goverr,��,e��*�� uses. - . These various subdiyisions of annual municipal expe:��i- ' ture are diagrammed on the following page, with on� example for each subcategory. , The reason for establishing this breakdown of the anrual '_ - municipal budget is to clearly show that the policies proposed in this document deal with capital expenditure� ' only!, ��hich are the minor portion of total annual expen- diture by the- City of St. Paul . Most local governmen� spending goes for operation and maintenance of exis�ir, ' facilities and services, while capital investment of�Q;. occurs on a catch-as-catch-can basis. Catch-as-catch-can capital expenditure is less true in t St. Paul than in r�any U.S. cities because of the ann�aaf capital improvement bond program authorized by the S�a,t� Legislature and in effect since 1967. This program has , assured continued investment in facilities, and it was t,1 rationally allocate these funds that the capital �nprL�.�Q- ment budget process used by the city was originall,y spt ' up. This process has been enlarged in recent years �o undertake allocation of all funds used for capital expen- diture. In 1976, the process was applied to Commun;±�: , Development funds as a means of coming to decisions ��ou� use of these Federal monies. This year, Community Development funds and dollars proposed for capital expen- diture will be put through a combined capital and ' Community Development aliocation decision-process. , ' 4 ' ' ' FIGURE 1 : COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE Annual municipal expenditures are made for two basic purposes: ' 0 eratin /maintenance ex enditures are for salaries and benefits, materia s an suppTies, utiTities, and contracts connected with ' running city government and supplying services. Capital expenditures are typically expenditures for construction , or reconstruction of public buildings, streets, sewers, park facilities, and so on. Municipal capital resources may be also allocated to residential o� commercial rehabilitation of non- governmental structures. Bond monies are appropriately used only / for capital expenditure. Annual Municipal ' Ex enditure , ' 0 e in Maintenance Ca itai -Maintenance/operation of existing -Capital expenditure to substantially ' - services, e.g. , salaries for renovate, upgrade, replace existing policemen and firemen now on the municipal facilities, e.g. , major forces, repair and maintenance of remodeling of Lowry Annex. , existing public facilities. -New maintenance/aperation expen- -Capital expenditure to create addi- itures for new services, e.g. , tional municipal facilities, e.g. , ' gasoline costs for additional cost of purchasing new park lands. ambulance service, con�ractual arrangements for home delivery , of ineals. -New maintenance/operation -Allocation of municipal capital for , expenditures associated with subsidy to the private sector. additional public facilities6, e.g. , new utility costs for an additional public building. , .Rehabilitation loans and grants, e.g., for neighborhood residential ' rehabilitation. .Land clearance and assembly, e.g. , for provision of otherwise un- obtainable parking space. ' ' 5 ' GOAL: STRONG, STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ' ' EN R L POLICY STATEMENT TO ALLOCATE �1UNICIPAL CAPITAL RESOURCES SO AS TO INDUCE ' AND SUPPORT, IP� A FISCALLY ANU SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER, INVESTMENT IN NEIGHBORHOODS. Two premises underly this general policy: (1 ) That ' investment by homeowners and property owners, or property owners-to-be, in neighborhoods is an absolute necessity for neighborhood vitality; and (2) That municipal ' government can induce and support investment decisions through its expenditure decisions. More specifically, the premise is that municipal capital f expenditures can tip the balance between in�estment and disinvestment in a residential neighborhood. City government cannot rejuvenate all neighborhoods by itself. ' This requires support of the {iousing market, favorable interest rates, and a number of other positive conditions over which local governments-have little direct control . � ' � However, municipal intervention through capital expen- ditures can induce and reinforce private decisions to protect and enhance the residential desirability of an , area. , Municipal capital expenditures important to investment in neighborhoods in a built-up urban setting are: ' Direct Subsidy Loans and Grants Municipal Utilities: ' -Water and Seweraae Facilities for Municipal Services: ' -Access/P1obility (i .e. , transportation facilities, including pavinc�, sidewalks, curbs) � -Multi-Service Facilities ' -Lightinq in publicly-owned or publicly-operated areas �lunicipal Amenities: ' -Libraries _ -Parks, Recreation Facilities -Cultural Facilities -Aesthetic Assets , ' . ,.. _ 1 ' 6 ' ' ' l;nder circumstances where no improvements Exist, muni- ' cipal capital allocations would be for:` First, municipal utilities; second, facilities for services; and third, municipal amenities. Since St. Paul is an almost ' completely built-up city, the particular municipal capital improvements appropriate for a residential area will be determined by: (1 ) need; (2) an overall city- wide strategy for development and redevelopment (as, ' e.g. , the Residential Improvement Strategy, PLAN BRIEF in Appendix 6) ; and (3) City Council-adopted district plans. , Capital expenditures - to repeat - are only part of annual r�unicipal expenditure in St. Paul . Policies ' relating to the allocation of capital resources are contained herein.� Those pol�icies are based in part in planning concerns because of the future consequences of present-day capital allocation decisions. Decisions made ' now on when and where municipal action will occur shape the city we have in the future. ' . - It should be pointed out that there may be other types of municipally-sponsored actions which could have an impact upon individual decisions to commit cap�tal in a neigh- borhood. These might include various educational , , regulatory, and service programs. , � . , ' . , ' ' ' ' 7 ' GOAL: STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY ' ' ENER L POLICY STATE ENT TO INDUCE AND SUPPORT IN A FISCALLY AP�D SOCIP,LLY ' RESPONSIBLE MANNER, INVEST�1ENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Much of the logic used in developing the description of capital expenditures appropriate for neighborhoods is ' transferrable to the goal of encouraging economic develop- ment. The strategy is the same and, in qeneral , the kinds of actions which municipal government can undertake ' as inducement or support of investment are the same, particularly for small-scale commercial development away from the downtown core. , However, with core development and industrial develop- ment/redevelopment, the municipal role is different in that it is often more critical . Because of the typical ' scale of core commercial deve"lopments and industrial development/redevelopment, municipal capital expenditures can be the key to success, or at least to minimization of ' risk. An example might be city provision of sewer ser- vice and sevrage treatment for a particular type of industrial activity, or assembly by public means of ' underutilized land for an industrial location, or for parking area. Failure of a municipality to take on the burden of public capital outlay needed by a private developer in direct support of a large scale project can ' mean dissolution of the project. This is especially true where land assembly is needed but cannot be accomplished by the private sector. ' Based u�on these observations, policies for capital resources allocation which induce and support investment ' in economic development would focus on continued, planned, provision or improvement of municipal utilities and facilities and aggressive pursuit of justifiable land assembly. Direct subsidy loans and grants also would be ' logical considerations. ' ' , ' ' 8 1 CONSTRAINT: FISCAL AND SOCIAL CONCERNS t ' FISCAL CONCERNS Simply stated, the City of St. Paul does not have enoug , dollars to undertake all capital improvement projects which could be put forward as reasonable requests or proposals. Hundreds of millions of dollars could be put ' into sewer and road work alone in St. Paul , were money available. Exactly how much money is likely to be available for ' capital improvements in 1978 - leaving aside for a moment the matter of what it is used for - is a difficult ques- tion to answer simply. Major sources of dollars for ' capital improvements are the Housing and Community Development Act (CD) Year IV block grant, local Capital Improvement Budqet (CIB) bond funds (maximum of $6.5 ' million) , and certain aids which must go for designated uses (such as �lunicipal State Aid and County State Aid, for repair of main route roads). ' Taking CD monies first, total funding for Year IV is anticipated to be $13.564 million. As much as $12.139 million could be considered already committed to: (1 ) activities which were funded by CD dollars in Year ' III; and (2) CD-funded projects vahich carry a commitment for completion. Additionally, some of the total $13.564 , million will go to planning and administration activities, and some of it - up to 20% - may go back to the U.S. ` Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as the city's repayment of a Neighborhood Development Program ' loan obtained from that agency some years ago.8 All of this means that there may be little CD ;'ear IV money available for new capital improvements. ' CIB bond funds, too, are constrained for 1978. As Figure 2 indicates, St. Paul has issued - on average - ' $6.4 million in general obligation bonds for capital improvements in each of the last ten years. Not all of these past issues have been CIB bonds, but they have been for capital improvements. �Is Figure 2 also indicates, ' the level of annual debt service (payment of interest and repayment of principal ) for all city general obligation bonds has been steadily climbing since 1967, and will ' continue to climb through 1978, to a peak of slightly over $14.5 million, even if no more bonds are issued by the city. A study of the bonded indebtedness situation ' of all agencies of local government was commissioned .by ' the City Council in 1976. 41hen conclusions and recom- mendations are completed and made available, it is possible that past bond issuance policy and practice may ' undergo alteration. ' 9 ' ' ' FIGURE 2: RECENT HISTORY OF BOND ISSUES BY AGENCY (In P1illions of Dollars) ' '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 Totals-10 Years Ramsey County 2.�$0 .760 6�60 7.545 14.450 3 .8� 95 T�5T`'- ' School Dist. 1.200 1 .200 3.730 10.250 1 .425 7.720 26.725 14.395 1 .310 14.835 82.797 32.63� Port Auth. 2.000 2.500 2.650 5.600 12.750 5.02� HRA 2.275 2.645 3.000 8.600 6.355 9.045 5.600 1 .000 38.520 15.18�; Devel . Dist. .500 4.600 5.100 2.01% ' Civic Center 6.000 13.000 19.QQ0 7.49" Ci�y 6�.665 25.09i � 41PA 2.000 2.000 2.000 4.000 4.000 CIB 5.75 4.1£'s5 4.000 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500 5.680 6.500 6.000 ' � 10.030 � 33.030 1TT3��.�6 39.5$� �65 � 2�35 253.720 99.99`; 40 _ ' 35 _ ' 30 ' 25 ' Bonds - Issued - By - Agency 20 - .-, ' 15 `ki'o�k�.o- .��,4 _ ��' . .�� ' - Lr�k �;r� _ '•�j�;: _ �~�,4 10 �� c, - } •" ' 5 - ��'�. 0 - ' 5 ' City of - St. Paul = ' Debt - Service 10 15 ' 3.477 4.165 4.579 6.332 7.181 7.737 9.552 10.340 11 .924 13.269 Source: Budget Office, 2/77 t �n f 1 1 Even if CIB bands are issued in 1977 for 1977 projects, � latitude for decision-making on 1978 allocations would be limited. As much as $6.5 million of 1978 CIB bond monies could be absorbed by projects begun with 1977 CIB � bond monies.9 To further complicate the matter, it is possible that the Downtown People P1over could absorb the equivalent of one full year of CIB bonds as the local ' share of its funding. If that should be the situation, projects proposed for CIB bond funding could encounter unavoidable delay. � Some 1978 capital improvement activity will be funded out of special aids, including Municipal State Aid (MSA) and County State Aid (CSA). As of its February 1 projection, , the Department of Public Works anticipates utilizing $2.47 million in MSA funds and $1 .10 million in CSA on paving, bridge, and traffic improvements in 1978.10 In � theory, proposals for use of these monies are subject to Capital Improvement Budget Committee evaluation and rating; in practice, Public Works designates utilization several years in advance. ' It seems then, decision flexibility remaining on 1978 capital improvements may be limited by both fiscal con- � siderations and other decision sequences. Longer-range capital allocation flexibility also may prove to be limited, but more by fiscal considerations than by other � concerns. Looking once again at Figure 2, it can be seen that City of St. Paul bond issues have been essentially steady over the ten-year period. Overall , however, the trend seems to be increasing bond issuance by agencies ' reliant, in whole or in part, on St. Paul 's tax base. Increasing use of tax-supported bonds (note: not all of the issues shown in Figure 2 are tax-supported bonds. ' Port Authority revenue bonds are repaid from proceeds of industrial development. Port Authority Amtrak station general obligation bonds have no tax levy certified. Downtown Development District bonds will be partially ' supported from parking ramp revenues. ) will put increased debt service pressure on St. Paul 's tax base over the coming years, which may constrain decisions by some , jurisdictions - the city included - regarding whether to issue bonds. Although receipts by city government in St. Paul have been qrawing (as shown for years 1970 � through 1975 in Figure 3) , St. Paul has become heavily reliant upon sources of revenue from other levels of government. These sources of revenue include Federal ' Revenue Sharing (see Table 2) , Housing and Community Development Act block grant monies (see Table 1 ) , and � 11 � ' ' TABLE l : ST. PAU� CD FUNDS* ' Program Year Million $ I 1975 $18.835 ' II 1976 $18.835 III 1977 $18.835 IV 1978 $13.564* , V 1979 $ 8.699* VI 1980 $ 4.228* *Figures supplied by the Community Development Office ' as of Pdovember 30, 1976. Subject to Congressional action. , ' � . ' T/�BLE 2: FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS RECEIVED BY ST. PAUL+ Calendar Year $ � 1972 $2,122,552 � 1973 $5,649,020 1974 $5,650,067 1975 $5,071 ,206 � 1976 �5,042,199 1977 (Expected) $5,271 ,240 Congress has extended the State and Local Fiscal Assis- , tance Act of 1972 (Federal Revenue Sharing) and will provide FRS aid to St. Paul through October, 1981 . The allocation will be by formula, with St. Paul 's funding � level likely to be in the $4.5-$5.0 million range. ' + Figures from Analysis of Receipts and Expenditures, � 1972-1975 (Department of Finance and �lanagement Services. , � 12 ' � Millions of Dollars 190 F�GURE 3: 80 (BOND ' CITY OF ST. PAUL RECEIPTS - 180 FUNDS - 1970-1975 1 70 SEE I , i FIGURE 2) SOURCE: Department of � •'d -� � � ; , Finance and Management Services ; � ; 60 : I�U .: � ' i � ' � � ' � i � 50 I I � I � , ; � � ; � i j ; �o , , ; OTNER � � � � � ' � , i � ; - i � 1��} � � � � I ! ! j � � 30 � i i j � � 130 � i � � � � i ' � � 2C � ' i ( ! � , 120 I ! ' ; ' ' ' � � I � ! ; ! + BOND FUNDS � i � 10 � I 1 � ; ; ' � � 1�0 � ! �� i + � � � i s � � ; � � . OTHER 100 ; � � 10 � Transfers � TEh1PORARY Enterprise Funds � LOANS PIR Funds 90 � � 0 ' Intragovernmental Funds ; ! 10 Spe�ial Revenue Funds ; � OTHER Special Assessment Funds 80 ! TAXES, ' Trus� Fwnds t � � � ETC. Use of Money and Property Water Department '0 � I � , � y I 30 60 � � 2C PROPERTY , TEMPORARY LOANS 50 TAXES � OTHER TAXES, ETC. 10 ' Fees, Fines, Forfeitures 40 ' " 0 � PROPERTY TAXES 30 � i 30 � i I � i ; , � j � � � 20 ! 20 AIDS/ , i ; � � i GRANTS/ � 10 � � 10 � � DONATIONS AIDS/GRANTS/DONATIONS ; I I I , 0 0 '70'71 '72'73'74'75 '70'71 '72'73'74'75 13 � � , state aids. Wh�le these revenues are welcomed as means ' of providing local improvements and services, capital allocation decisions must be made with one significant fiscal reality in mind: Much of St. Paul 's resource ' allocation flexibility is dependent upon policy of governments whose primary concern is not St. Paul . SOCIAL CONCERN Social concern in municipal capital resource al ocation � is defined broadly to include sensitivity to health/ welfare needs, ecological and other environmental iss�es, , educational needs and cultural differences. While �road goals involving strong, stable neighborhoods and a strong local economy do not have much potential for , conflict with social service goals and concerns, the potential for such conflict increases as these broad goals are made morE specific and as specific actions are � proposed by which to implement them. For example, the broad goal of developing and maintaining ' , a strong local economy is easily agreed upon. The general policy of achieving this goal through allocation of municipal capital so as to induce and support invest- ment has greater potential for conflict with social goals ' and concerns because it specifies how the economic development goal is to be achieved. In this case, the conflict is between utilizing scarce municipal capital , for social service needs as opposed to using it to induce and support economic development. Specific policies supporting a general economic development policy may � conflict even more with socia� service goals. In the short term, such conflict is inevitable. No municipality can address all its needs at once. This , means that short-range policies designed to take the city in a particular direction may de-emphasize other desir- able courses of action. Emphasing one course of action ' over another does not mean that the city does not care about attaining goals whose paths lie in other directions; it only means that - for the short-term future - limited resources are applied with one emphasis rather than , another. Nonetheless, municipal capital allecations must be made ' within a framework of social sensitivity. Inducement and support of investment proposals will generally be a good decision. But, some municipal and private investment , decisions will have adverse social effects. These effects must be ic�entified and reduced to acceptable levels. � 14 , i POLICIES ; r � � � Specific policies listed below for capital resources , allocation relate directly to goals and general policies discussed in the preceding sections. These policies are intended to support those goals and general policy ' direction and are further specifications of them. Four specific capital allocation policies are listed , which take precedence over others: POLICY A Capital resource al ocations to ensure basic protection � of life and provision of public safety and health take precedence over other allocations of municipal capital . ' POLZCY A2 Allocation of municipal capita for substantial renova- tion, replacement, and upgrading of useful , existing, ' essential public facilities is favored over allocations of municipal capital for new public facilities. , . LICY Capita al ocat�ons for faci ities whic support muni- cipal operations will be based upon clearly demonstrated need. Once need is accepted by City Council , these types , of capital allocations will generally take precedence over allocations based on policies which follow. ,. � , � ' ' ' ' 15 ' , , POLI Y A Un ess specific an unusua circumstances ictate ot er- ' wise, completian of capital expenditures previously committed should have priority over new proposals. ' COMMENTARY These four "umbrella" policies recognize (A1 ) that ' municipal government's first responsibility is to protect citizens within its jurisdiction, and that (A2) neglect of existing service facilities in favor of creating facilities for new services is unwise. Policy A3 recog- , nizes the fact that some necessary capital outlays will not fall within the previously discussed goal and general policy statement framework. An example might be a , facility like a garage, which�would support fleet opera- tions. To the extent that need for these kinds of capital outlay can be demonstrated, they are of high ' priority because of the dependence of other services upon them. Other examples might include major equipment items (such as, say, data processing equipment) or facilities which are supportive of a larger service system (as, for ' ' example, an administrative office). Policy A4 is explicit recognition of the need generally to follow through on work in proqress. ' POLICY 5 The city s diseased tree rep acement program wi continue to be a high priority for capital allocations. ' POLICY A6 New swimming poo s wil not be considered for funding ' until high annual operating and maintenance costs of swimming pools can be financed without strain on the city budget. , ' ' ' , ' 16 ! � � :��:''�� !�I - �.�I �~ cA; �� ,r ,. � �� ;�� , _ � �.. ,�+�►• � • � ��.��. �� ,�°�°� ��' � <�� #��'��•�.�«�^��., �� w��A ��Elw�� 1�� / ►' � `� �� .,�� r �� ♦ • '�� .a..,;,,�aaa�� I�1�1� ��.<:ry;:��r�l�� . ,.��. �,� �I�N�� N��° ��1AN�� `��i ■�� a�"�� .�_��m�� I �� I��P {�>{�r:�■� _�� ye�'<<;� �� ;�� ,%i�� ; � N �ry� j ,,�� , �° � >��i�::: �� L'�. �� 1�� t: ��`::;$.>,:r>>::<.:l.. �. 8�a ��::��:��Sa3:��." ( �� # 1 u��#�� k��ili�iii � �'�. ��_ � ��`��::��::....... �� '�M�� 3��>:� ��:ii� ...�� •�� M��w��, ��:��.��,�.��_�� +g� ae��res�� x:��^ >:;:3;: y ■I ■ xa��sQ�■ a� '� meaeeeawaw ��,x�/�1�.�:� .� 8�� t+ �� '�a°°��!��II �,��;'� hY ; �1�� `� � zf� } �RSasc a,�c� �,��+�,� A�� I��1� ��nh,� s<_ � � � �� ,,.,. � �� '�t� ��.� �� u�� <: � �� ;�� .� �y��rr�N• ��a��1�,��11 �� r �� w��uJ��--- _�� e� �Q��g � ' a8E8E��r3$�4X 6%R� ��_`.'g'. ""� ��, tltl7tRRR � 1��_..,,,..� .. _�� '��#� ��i�� i4:�.,��x�-,.��:�� i�� i �� , , a�� `'''�i 111 � � ��r:.�::::;::}:<:{.<:��II�11� �� v�' ,�w�� ! 11 �I� ��f <i%�� I 111 II ,�� 1 ill� :>k rr>.{<:r��<>:� �II!1 I 1 1 �� .�� . ;::.�>r.�::;::� �� ■■ � `��'' 'ii�i �9�{:>^:::::>�z�>r:� �pj�� g ��i�� o�r%:t:,<��!"�� ,�et 5�� `i�1��1:� l/��?IIIIINI Y p1 1 ��! �,� ��p}�,��.i�p�1111111111�11111111111 r�� M«��.w:;�>;�. ;��;�� /�li11�11�1 � ��IIII � ��:�' —_—�„� IG�::�e.� �,I ��N� ��IIII �� 3�L'�� .��.. � .�� ....III � I� i�l� I��I � �. , .1,��'�a : �ur■ ��_ _r ' �� , �� . ", 3 ►7.� ��i�, 'i �� i �xufse • N\ , �� i�� - �91C� �� - A�� .•��.�n�� i �� 1�� t��4t2ac«x. w � �s a.,c;:sac�� ►* y �I � � � ��'� +et3�i! ,a�o-■ xa��e.��` ;�;.�' v+��11� �-- �'�. ��iiii��r— t �� ►.•.,;1� � ��_.� ss�e .....� �a , .� �l��.l.�.�!��/ � . , II ��za��s�u.;�� ' �i ��1 � � • • ��t�� • �� '� � � f�� — ��s�a��1��(� , • ��4►�� , s�sassea48...�a�� a. •� • ♦ � � - � � ?3fRf3ei43��d��5�� `�� .��► � i�.�� 33gEF1R2Rass�� ■�i�� . � � �� 1 � x«ar g ��,�� , ,��►�!��1� ' � � � � , 1 'R I��:�M�� i% +��••' � �•^ RffbRi� Yf��$��.a�i'��/ ' ��' ►� #��FFR tk� �,• si� ��m \ rr �'�SRf25iS.�0 � � • • ��s��ir'r��£A�\� � QI�II� ��«�� tl1y�� ::��iii=i <m��r• � �,� w ::�� i �� :• 111��:�.��I :��1i�. -�� ♦ �►�■ = N ��n �� g��3 �� - � �� / �, � � �� 9� �E 1 'e#��'.i �,� 1 A�� I �� R'��'°��' '��I � �1\� ��3£�� #4` ��' ! 11 �� i�� f�a €�� a�: I�� i��1� �i �� ' � s�� : �� i � �� i� ��.- �� .�� ,,�,�� ,� �� % ,�� '' � �� - �� / '_, � �'I �� - � '�� ;Z��.r� � �1�K�� q�r �� 1��'� � � ��,�� I�i �� ° � .�� , ��IU ��:`��.��:� - ,�. �� '1�''i� ��N��1`�� I�� , � , � ,� �-^"°'-� .. � r '�, � � 1��" �"� i��, � ■ ��` �sr,�� L -�� 's�; �� a. ��1 � �:.� °"' r7 # �1/� IA�� '�� `�-�� "�o�°�� '�'�� . � � �� ►! ��,1� °1`�� (��$f .��1��' LL •pue� ay� �o , asna� a��d��aad o� s�aae III �uawanoadwj u� ��essa�au aq �ew �uaw�sanu� �2�ldp� �uawu�ano6 a6ae� aw�� u� �u�od awos �y •sa��naas uewny ao} SUOL��O��E �p�LdP�-UOU ' uo s� way� u� s�s�ydwa ay� ��anaMOy �uo��p�i ��qeya� �e�� -uap�sa� �o� ��ed��ui�d seaae III �uaivanoadwI ao� aw�� s�y� �e pasodo�d si �P�ld2� �ed��unw �o uo��nq�a�s�p , •s��o��a uoi�e�� <<qeyaa asoy� �o an��aoddns s�uawano�dw� ��d��unw , �o� pue uo�� qeyaa ao� sea�p II pue I �uawanoadwi o� pa�p�o<<e aq �snw spun� �uawano�dw� �e��de�•q `seaa� �e��uap�saa asay� �o daa�dn pup a�ueua�u�ew o� , a�nq��uo� y��yM s�uawanoadw� ao} seaae II pup I uo��en -aasuo� o� pa�e�o��p aq �snw spun� �uawano�dw� �P�Ldp�•e :sa�d��uiad i oM� saz�u6o�aa �uawanoadw� �e��uap�saa ao� sa�anosa� �Q�LdE� �EdL�LUnW �o uo��nq�a�s�p pa�sa66ns-anoqe ayl •„�6a�pa�s �uawanoadwI �e��uap�saa„ ay� �o ' y�eoadd� uo��enaasuo�/�uawu�e�uo� ay� y��M �ua�s�suo� �� od uo��e�o<<e �E�LdB� e says� �qe�sa L8 �uawa�e�s ' �anoqe pauo��uaw spaae asay� �o y�ea �o sa�appunoq ay� sa�e��pu� �„�6a�ea�s �uawanoadwi �e��uap�saa„ ay� woa� `dpW 6UL�U2dW0��E ayl •a�euoi�ea aan��puadxa �p�Ld2� ' a�q�suodsaa e sau� ��no y��yM � „�6a�p��s �ua�anoadwi �e��uap�saa„ ay� y6no�y� paysi��0��2 si s�yl •��edw� wnw�xew ana�y�e o� sp os spun� a�qe<<ene 6u�puadxa ao� �� qisuodsaa a�e� �snw �uawuaano6 �edi��unw �sa�anosaa • , pa��w< < �o a�p� ay� uI •�� ay� �noy6noay� paau �o s�anal ll� ssa�ppe o� �ua��nsu� a�e sa��nosaa �e��de� Abb1N3WW0� , %0'L %5l-%5 III �uawanoadwi ' %5'OL %bti-%OZ II ��awanoadwI %0'££ %0£-%OL I �uawanoadwl %0'ZZ %5Z-%Ol II uo��enaasuo� /5•� /5L-/5 I uo��enaasuo� ' eaay �� o � uo��e�o��d paso o�d eaay :suo��aodo�d 6u� , -MO<<o� ay� u� pa�nq�a�s�p aq �<<M ��e�aua6 �uawanoadwi �e��uap�saa o� pa�e�o��e sa�anosaa �P�LdE� �PdL�LUnW L8 ��I�Od i •spoouaoqy6�au u� �uaw�sanu� , ��auue� a�q�suodsaa ��p��os pue ��2�SL� e u� °�aoddns pue a�npu� o� se os sa��nosaa �ed��unw 6ui�e�o��2 �o � ��< <od �e�aua6 ay� y��M s�pap sa�� od �o sa��as �xau ayl ' , ' � � "r��► �� j � I�� , �� i_. �III ► i�-• � ! �� , �; ,�,� -- �� i!�� =s �� : � ��-��- °.�,�,... � ... � � � �v;,,.� ��.,... ��II ��11��1 i� �► = '�� _ �7 1� .. ►�'$;��r:;�� 1111111 II '' I . l 11 1 1 ��<��}-0� 1 � �1 � �" ' � � �� `�' I.. � �, �, �uu�� i� . � .� 11�'� _ ��ii�=�� f� � � r �� ~ 1� ,.�� %� � � � @��M#� �/• �� i��is �� Ir�� "�� ; 1��w�� m°�a � ��'11 ��i� �iiii��i1�� ,'i eaeemw86$E9E81$IIB ��o`e.p��'4' �' ��i�' q�� re�� >.�.�i��`� � ��.� s�� !!�s�� r��t.,��' ,. :;'�a�i �� ' ��#�IN��1�� ':� ti ��s�' ,�,�.� �� 1 ,►,� �� N�� .;."�,�; , � � � � �"�l�i�� i � oxeaeo g � . h ,��.1 A' , i i 1�1 �� «y�if '�:, �r � •F3•i��, .h��1�� : ��,, �'.•�`•i . ��,rr��11 ff�e�ae . . _ �I ��e�g � Z�j,�, s�� „� A�a�a�� ' � aax �.� ��f �%��smu��fla+ . . � ox7GaAmoe'� ��,+,1��'�. � �� I��ql#ql-flqqppk��/�� 135� ��Aj.�''� ��/��p�qlppqt#��nm�'1� ■ . . • �� ♦ �i!N#�IBi�� \� � � •��w��j � � � ��°� r�� • �� a��iB�4:; �� /� �� ■� � �i ii. r �� ' ♦ ��w��,�� /��'.A�� ad�l�� r- , w�a�iii bx ....a''■'�„�a w k� �� i , �.�K��.�r:•■ I�II��+aa,?�.7 :�� '��.!� '� ..■:::' . r;•o s$ifk�a�p{:: � � �� /� �v�� poa�a ,�xi�AABM � . �� ti,�, � .� � � �3�F .NRfi4Ii8f7"NC2� j �} � �6tRi' M50663C�Id67'.w � ry �� ''�53Q0�EG1idt863 ,+k' . ' . u ��..��y � \ � �`u6(Rl�Q�S� .-ni A.��::: .�L�;. . �. � � RG�7�.�k,� . \ � . . �h r��/,I ,�N'. I"�_ . � ��``,\\ . 30�. � .. �� r ;��:1 � . . mac�w ��s�i� = �ttt t�xu��5�� w�pap�.aa : +waouooa ��. . IIIt '��E�� \�$�eee�a ■ IGOC�Q11{SNx7. 9(�JG�'� �i�� ' , ,/t `�1iIV��fl�na Q{�p Y �pp�yp,\ '�C�lR�7RR�A. � '+� �'Y .. ' ! NIIX$�i! I� .�:$:?771WEKK!��,\�`C7C7q0106 . .{ �� p y� �z� . �,. �-� 1�1�� v��s�s� .. :.�. � ,��g :-' � s��' � ��an�gx �b. �� ,00� �p��N�p �AA��igG �g;�ks�� 36363 _ ` �1 � ��g�tp�� / �Set�a�t G7�91� 7R�iA��.�4`Y?i � $fiGt ;3 �: ,�,� �i. o�o��N�tdi��flR�� , ��•��; �� I� ��'�� ,- ' �� ii1� �g�%�� y��y��Yy�p�p� ��w��. .wa.a , ��p�ppip6�1g8,��y� ��7A��{RS�{WpQbE1 f �°t4�%8l��+�,�� ` _, � �I i� +8f�� Ik�II�1�iB��I�.��bi��ltl�� ,I:' %_�i�.'Q�� }.'': . �� N � ��■��.I,�1111 _.., '� ��.� s�� I �� ri��W ■ ��N '�ti� > �� w�� -r��i�=�N��D�. ��. � _ : ��N�III��"' ��1��M�IIIw1I� � '. ;<. '�� I� � u��1�� 1 �>= ��.�. ' �I�I�� 1�� M \�► � I I��R/?'��.� �# ��:.. 4 II�� aa� � ��«��ry��p Np ,��pqtl� ��3g�g�,� ��■ ��ppn��w�� c� �� BB�N 7k19I MI��Itl � 6tlt7{��tll�lA�'�'�1��" � ��„ " � ��k��:�::-u,,. � is��lllll NI� �i��: a�� ,� # �. �� .. ,_,�. ;�!► .�� ':-s:r::��;�� , :Nin�� .�fi �� t �°' �� . ��5� 1� � � _ _ , ��a�are��a� IIIII 1� ..II�I•�t/ 1 ��II �� ,.,,�I,,/��J:��C��s�C_�II�� ;�� .� „ ��j��"�_��ii � > �'► .��:��eg�� /:� �� -�� ! -� ,�I��►+�J.�- • � �s�� /�/i r %�� _ . -� _ ,:,,-- ' ' _. . , POLICY 62 4lithin each of the above treatment ,areas, pwoposa s for capital improve�nent should be supported by the City , � Council-adopte� district plan. If no district plan exists, allocation will be on the bas�,s of most .critical needs first which - in Improvement iIT areas - may , include land assembly as part of l�nd re,use strategy. Where needs are equivalent, attention normally would first be directed to grants and loans for rehabilitation, ' then to provision of municipal u:tilities, then to facili- ties for municipal services, and finally to municipal amenities and aesthetics. , ENT RY Allocation of capital resources among various treatment , areas in St. Paul will be according to Policy B1 . Once an area is designated as a focus for residential improve- ment, allocation of resources is then on the basis of recommendations in the appropriate Cit.y Council -adopted ' district plan. In instances where a, plan has not yet been developed, critical needs identified by district � councils, where established, or by area residents•, and ' accepted by City Council would be addressed firSt. In cases where consensus does not exist to indicate parti- cular capital improvements as clearly more needed than , others, then attention will be fiocused first- on provision of rehabilitation loans and grants for residential improvement; secondly on provision or improvement of municipal utilities; thirdly on provision or.improvement ' of facilities for municipal services; and fourthly, on provision o improvement of municipal amenities and aesthetics.�2 In all instances, the active commitment to and participation in residential improvement on the part ' of area residents is a prerequisite ta municipal capital allocation. ' Note: Footnote 12 defines "municipal utili.ties" to include water facilities. While it is true that the City of St. Paul is responsible for proaision of water within , its jurisdiction, this is accor�plw;ished by the St, Paul Board of Water Commissioners, whose operation is self- sustaining. ' ' , 20 . ' ' , ' ' The next series of specific policies promotes the general policy of allocating municipal capital resources so as to induce and support investment in economic ' development. POLICY C Municipal capita for economic evelopment wi e a o- � cated within the framework of City Council -adopted district plans as appropriate. Municipal capital allo- cations designed to induce and support investment for ' economic development will favor proposals with high capacity to leverage resources from sources other than the city property tax base. In this regard, City Council support of the Downtown People Mover (DPM) in its ' conceptual stage should be noted. If construction is approved by the City Council , commitment of local funds to the DPM may necessitate deferral of some other capital , improvements. � COMMENTARY The City Council will be considering a document entitled "Tomorrow's Framework from Today's Foundation, Planning for powntown St. Paul ". If adopted, this document will , formally set the course by which proposals for downtown should be gu]'ded, including proposals for public capital expenditure.13 A major component of the downtown plan is ' the Downtown People Mover, of course, but guidelines are offered to direct development in other subject areas as well , each of which may have implications for municipal capital expenditure. � District plans for areas other than downtown also deal with cor�mercial and economic development needs, as ' appropriate. Where City Council-adopted district plans do address this type of need, then municipal action to induce and support investment for camr.;ercial development - , or economic development not specifically tied to commercial activities - should be supported by, and in support of, the adopted district plan. ' ' � ' 21 � ' , Policy D1 is explicit recognition of the need for continued attent?on to the connection between capital ' expenditures and operating/maintenance costs stemming from them. Policy D1 is an attempt to begin describing in policy terms the dimensions of municipal fiscal ' responsibility in St. Paul . POLICY D1 It would be extremely desirable to invest municipal � capital in 1978 in such a way as to result ultimately in no net increase in city operating or maintenance responsibilities. , � ��Item P (cost of operation and/�or maintenance) on the , St. Paul Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee Task Force - Project Rating Sheet"* (form MOBS-3-31 -77) evaluates the impact on operating/maintenance costs a ' capital improvement produces. The implication of Policy D1 is that capital expenditures for 1978 which can be expected to increase subsequent years' operating/ � � maintenance responsibilities would be dropped. Pursuit of this policy in the extreme may be unwise. On the other hand, municipal budqets must be contained within limits of taxpayers' ability to pay, which implies ' pointed concern for operating/maintenance costs flowing from municipal capital investment. *For readers not familiar with the form, a sample copy of , the version to be used in 1977 is given in Appendix C. isca constraints ace y t e ity o St. au are suc ' that allocation of capital resources for human service programs is unlikely. ' OLICY D3 Essentia joint-use faci ities which can e financed and , operated jointly by the city and other governmental entities will be a high priority when the joint-use facility can be constructed and operated at less cost , than separate facilities. , � 22 ' ' ' ' ' 1'he following specific policy relates to the relative desirability of implementing one of the general policy statemen�s over the other. The two general municipal capital investment policies for 1978 are: (1 ) To induce , and support investment in neighborhoods; and (2) To induce and support investment for economic development. ' P LICY Insofar as choices present themse ves, municipa capita resources allocation for 1978 should favor inducement and ' support of investment for economic development. C EN Y ' Favoring inducement and support of investment for economic development over inducing and supporting invest- ment in neigh�orhoods is a policy which consciously ' acknowledges that the brunt of any physical improvement in St. Paul is ultimately traceable to a sound local economy. The major resource flows for residential investment are from industrial and commercial activity, ' • not from public action. Local government may seek to � impact specific, small-scale problems, but the overall capability of the citizenry to invest and reinvest in ' residential construction and improvement is dependent upon income - from jobs, dividends and interest, and pensions (as pictured on the following page). The pri- mary source of income is still the private sector, not ' government. Given that (1 ) local government in a built-up city like , St. Paul can affect reshaping of and reinvestment in the city only in a marginal way, and that (2) the financial capacities of both government and residents are tied to ' the area 's economic vitality, then, where local govern- ment is presented with choices, its limited powers of inducement should be used to influence decisions to bring ' about investment for economic development. ' ' ' ' 23 ' ' , FIGURE 4: INVESTMENT CAPABILITY REFLECTS LOCAL ECONOMY ' ' PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITY ::., , ... , , , :: PENS10 NS :::>:: DIVIDENDS : SALARIES :::: ' A E NTERE T W G S :�:: ��:::>�<: � 1 S � , .. :.:::<.:;:.:::. .. .::�:.:::::::. ' ' PERSONAL EXPENDITURE CHOICES ' , , ::::::;:::::::RE IDENTIAL �:�:�:;� INDIVIDUAL �� ' SAVI NGS . . S ::::;::::::>:� ��:>��>::: P A R H SE �:�::�» NVE U C ::::;.....� STMENT S »: :.`��}��..� ' , 24 '