The URL can be used to link to this page

91-2174��:�� Council File # � / � �� Green Sheet # RESOLUTION CITY OF SAIN PAUL, MIN ;� Preaented By Referred To WHEREAB, the Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) is a partnership between the State of Minnesota, the City of Saint Paul � and its core neighborhood organizations; and AHEREAS, URAP has been highly successful since the legislature began funding it in 1987; and WHEREAS, last session the legislature approved $11.8 million in funding for Duluth„ Minneapolis, Saint Paul and South Saint Paul -- about $4.3 million for Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, Governor Carlson vetoed this appropriation; and WHEREAS, the loss to the City of Saint Paul is not limited to $4 . 3 million -- all of the funds leveraged with URAP dollars are lost as well; and TiPHEREAB, with the loss or decrease in so many federal programs, there is no substitute for the hard subsidy dollars providing by URAP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul supports continued fun ding of URAP or the development of a new program for community revitalization that recognizes the same goals as the URAP pro�ram. Yeas Navs Absent �on —,�— -- Requested by Department of: oswztz T on �acca ee ettman T un e —�— son-- By: —,--- Adopted by Council: Date DEC 5 1991 Farn► Approved by City Attorney Adoption Ce ified by Counc' S cretary , � _ - By: — � �.� . By: � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Approved by �ayor: Da e DEC � �� Council gy; J �:'�`'%�'�i�� By: � F�Q��ED DFC 14'91 � . �i ai�s� � DEPARTM�VT/yFICE/COUNCIL� DATE IN�ATE� G REEN SH EET �O 15 8 2 3 Cit Council 11 25 91 p�p�p�pp�,ffip�.�p� INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE ��'�TAti'VL111tr11Al�l�er �ng X44'�3 �DEPARTMENTDIRECTOR �CITYCOUNCIL ASSIGN �CITY ATTORNEY a CITY CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DATE) NUMBER FOR ❑BUDCiET DIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICES DIR. ROUTING ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANn a TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Supporting continued funding of the Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) or the development of a new program that recognizes the same goals as the URAP program. RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Reject(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE8TION8: _PLANNINQ COMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION �• Hes this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? _CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? _STAFF — YES NO _DISTRIC7 COURT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any cunent city employee? SUPPORT3 WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green ahest INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why): Threats to the URAP program exist that might adversely effect a program that has been so successful in St. Paul. ADVANTACiES IF APPROVED: The City will work towards continuing the URAP program. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: None. DISADVANTA(iES IF NOT APPROVED: The City risks changes to the URAP program that would be onerous to the City. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION s COST/REVENUE BUDGETEp(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDINCi SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) �,,` �� NOTE: COMPLETE�DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO. 298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent types of documents: CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept. Qrants) 1. Outside Agency � 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Budget Director 4. Mayor(for contracts over$15,000) 4. Mayor/Assistant 5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Cou�cil 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION(all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Acxountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and ManagemeM Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. Ciry Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Descxibe what the projecVrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most approp�iate for the issue.Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete ff the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET,SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the city's liability for workers compensation claims,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by Iaw/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benefit from this projecUaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this project/request produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When?For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved? Inabiliry to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? , �cqr-��7� ✓ URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM BRIEFING PAPER Backctround The Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) is a partnership between the State of Minnesota, the City of Saint Paul and its core neighborhood organizations. Financed through the State of Minnesota and matched by City resources, the program continues to help ensure a strong and improving future for those neighborhoods most threatened by physical deterioration and lack of economic opportunity. The URAP program targets funds for economic development and housing in the City's most distressed neighborhoods. The state has recognized its responsibility to help the central cities address critical needs in deteriorating neighborhoods by funding this successful program since 1987 . Issue Last session, the legislature approved $11. 8 million dollars in URAP funding for Duluth, Minneapolis, Saint Paul and South Saint Paul -- about $4 . 3 million for Saint Paul. However, that appropriation was vetoed by Governor Carlson. The loss to the City of Saint Paul is not limited to $4 . 3 million. These "hard" subsidy dollars were the catalyst for other public and private investment in the Saint Paul neighborhoods that need it the most. ;� In addition, Saint Paul exceeded the local match requirement set forth in the legislation for every year of funding received. With the loss or decrease in so many federal programs -- General Revenue Sharing, Community Development Block Grants, Urban Development Action Grants, the Economic Development Administration and the Job Training and Partnership Act -- there is no alternative available to URAP funding. Recommendation The City of Saint Paul supports continued funding of URAP or the development of a new program for community revitalization that recognizes the same goals as the URAP program. , . ��-y��7� � T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Initiate PAGE CSSP {Apprvd by Committee, 9/13/91? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Property Tax Relief: Local Government Aid {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91� . . 5 Constitutional Dedication of Sales Tax {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 7 Fiscal Disparities {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91) . . . . . 8 Polluted Lands tApproved by Council, 9/19/91} . . . . . . . 10 MELSA Funding {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 13 Housing Issues {Apprvd by Committee, 11/22/91j . . . . . . . 17 HRA Expansion of Powers {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 24 Substantial Support Metropolitan Parks/Como Park Dept Service {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 27 URAP {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Public Safety Issues {Apprvd by Committee, 11/22/91} . . . . 34 Maternal Child Health (Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91� . . . 39 Parking Tag Income {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 41 Housing Court {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91) . . . . . . . 43 Photo Cop {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . . . 45 Metropolitan Transportation Trust Fund {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 47 Immunization Transferability/Medical Records {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 49 Metropolitan State University {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91) . 51 Presidential Primary Funding tNo recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 53 Cultural Tourism/Historical Preservation District (No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 55 Monitor - Health Care Access {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 58 Ayd Mill Road tApprvd by Committee, 10/18/91) . . . . . . . 60 Service Charge Definition Change {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 62