Loading...
91-2180 V������ S Jb�'�-f-� � . Council File � �� f�� � Green Sheet � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNFSOT � � - � Presented �- - ��/ Referred To Committee: Date 1 2 3 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING DEDICATED STATE FUNDING FOR MASS TRANSIT 4 AND THE CREATION OF A MINNESOTA TRANSIT TRUST FUND 5 6 7 WHEREAS, the public demand for efficient means of travel through the metropolitan area is 8 increasing more rapidly than governments ability to construct highways; and 9 10 WHEREAS, the City is currently developing a local transit initiative through development of the 11 Transportation Policy Plan, Transit Access Study, Downtown Transit Services Improvement 12 Program, and coordination of transit service improvements during 1992 downtown highway 13 construction; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the current mass transit system in the metropolitan area does not adequately meet 16 current needs and will be unable to meet increased future demands; and 17 18 WHEREAS, funding sources that may be used to expand e�cisting transit systems and to develop 19 new transit systems are very limited; 20 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul supports the creation of a 22 Minnesota Transit Trust Fund financed with a dedicated source of existing state revenues for the 23 sole purpose of funding the operational costs of mass transit; and be it 24 25 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the funding source(s) for the Minnesota Transit Trust Fund should 26 be some portion of existing revenues raised through the Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) or 27 State Gasoline Tax; and be it 28 29 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a first priority use of the Transit Trust Fund revenues should be the 30 expansion of existing mass transit systems, including the current bus system, to the extent that this is 31 necessary to provide an adequate level of bus service in the regional transit system; and be it 32 33 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a second priority use of the Transit Trust Fund should be the 34 development of new transit systems, but that this secondary use should not be explored until an 35 adequate level of bus service in the metropolitan area is developed; and be it 36 r �. f '� = - .����� " 1 , . 9i- �� �� 2. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City continues to support legislation by the State of Minnesota 3 that would develop an automobile trip reduction policy for the State of Minnesota, which would 4 specifically include: 5 1) a requirement that State offices and State and Regional agencies must be located on 6 core mass transit routes; and 7 2) the prohibition against requiring that free or below market rate parking be a condition 8 of siting a State facility; and 9 3) a requirement that allows State employees the option of using any state parking subsidy 10 toward the cost of public transit 11 12 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City continue to work with the Regional Transit Board, 13 Metropolitan Transit Commission and Metropolitan Council in development of regional transit 14 initiatives consistent with the City's emerging local transit initiative work. 15 16 17 Yeas Nays Absent Requested by Department of: imon oswz z on acca e� e man une i son i BY� Adopted by Council: Date ��—((� - �� Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption Ce if'ed by Council ecretary By: � � By' Approved by Mayor for Submission to Approved by Ma or: Da Z,�� •�� Council —=r•— By: By� P�eiisw�o DEC 21'91 G'�iya�� ✓ DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED NO 18 9 0 6 city counci� 11/25/91 GREEN SHEET CONTACT PERSON,&PHONE INITIAL/DATE INITIAUDATE Counci lmember Long x4 4 7 3 �DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL ASSIGN �CITYATTORNEY �CITYCLERK NUMBEN FOR MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DATE) ROUTING �BUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICES DIR. ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTAN'n � TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Supporting the creation of a Minnesota Transit Trust Fund (MTTF) for the purpose of funding mass transit system in the metropolitan area. RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Reject(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLANNINCi COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1• Has this person/firm ever work6d under a contraCt for this department? _CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? _STAFF — YES NO _ DI3TRICT COUR7 _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE7 YES NO Explaln all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why): Although vast amounts of revenue are collected annually with the State's gas tax, Motor Vehicle Excise tax, and Vehicle Registration tax, none of this is available to develop much needed mass transit systems. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: The City would be able to work towards the creation of the MTTF for the purposes of developing adequate mass transit. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: None. DISADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVED: The City will face the problem of finding new revenue sources to develop the required systems during a period when new revenue sources are unavailable. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) ;, _ V W 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. Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. Ciry 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 Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revisfon) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. Ciry Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others) 1. Department Director 2. Ciry Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip orHeg �ech of thsse payss. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Councfl objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing the key word(s) (HOUSINO, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDOET,SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the city's liabiliry 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. ADVANTACiES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ 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 exisiing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed (e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When?For how long7 DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved4 Inability 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, (n general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay7 �'�i ai�� Minnesota Transit Trust Fund Briefing Paper -1 of 1- Background The existing transit system in the Metropolitan area is unable to meet current needs. Despite the planned expansion of the highway systems it is recognized by State engineers that we can not build enough highways to meet future needs. Some form of mass transit, whether it is busses or some form of rail system, must be developed to meet the future needs of the Metropolitan area. Issue Most current funding mechanisms for transit development are dedicated to road and bridge construction and repair. These include the gasoline tax, the motor vehicle title transfer fee, and the motor vehicle excise tax. Although these mechanisms raise significant revenue, they can not be used to fund mass transit systems. While this is appropriate in rural areas, the Metropolitan Area has an increasing need for a better developed mass transit system. Because of the unavailability of these revenues, any major restructuring of the mass transit system in the Metropolitan Area would require the development of new revenue sources, something that is highly unlikely in tight fiscal periods. Recommendations The City should support State legislation that would create a Metropolitan Transit Trust Fund (MTTF) for the purpose of funding mass transit systems in the Metropolitan area. The MTTF would be funded using currently existing revenue sources. No new revenue would be raised. The revenue should be dedicated to restructuring existing transit systems. Only when the development of a bus system is completed to the greatest extent possible would the MTTF be used for the development of new transit systems. ; G��'a��' � 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 {Approved by Council, 9/19/91� . . . . . . . 10 MELSA Funding {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 13 Housing Issues {Apprvd by Committee, 11/22/91� . . . . . . . 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 {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/911 . 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 {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 60 Service Charge Definition Change {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 62 s�b��.-�te Council File # l ��s2/��-� Green Sheet ,� R UTION CITY OF S UL, MINNESOTA _ , Presented By Referred To - Committee: Date 1 A RESOLUTION CO ERNING DEDICATED STATE FUNDING FOR MASS TRANSIT 2 AND THE C ATION OF A MINNESOTA TRANSIT TRUST FUND 3 4 WHEREAS, the public deman or e�cient means of travel through the metropolitan area is 5 increasing more rapidly than gov ents ability to construct highways; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the current mass transi system in the metropolitan area does not adequately meet 8 current needs and will be unable to et increased future demands; and 9 10 WHEREAS, funding sources that may b used to expand e�usting transit systems and to develop 11 new transit systems are very limited; 12 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, t t the City of Saint Paul supports the creation af a 14 Minnesota Transit Trust Fund financed with a dicated source of existing state revenues for the 15 sole purpose of funding the operational costs of ass transit; and be it 16 17 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the funding source(s for the Minnesota Transit Trust Fund should 18 be some portion of existing revenues raised through t e Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) or 19 State Gasoline Tax; and be it 20 21 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a first priority use of the ansit Trust Fund revenues should be the 22 expansion of existing mass transit systems, including the cur nt bus system, to the extent that this is 23 necessary to provide an adequate level of bus service in the gional transit system; and be it 24 25 FINALLY RESOLVED, that a second priority use of the Trans' Trust Fund should be the 26 development of new transit systems, but that this secondary use s ould not b� explored until an 27 adequate level of bus service in the metropolitan area is dev�lope ��� �� � � Y� Navs Absent � � e�es�ed b �Dep rtment of: zmon � \ oswitz �r � on acca ee � `_ C � e man / J�/ � an e �� . �y; 9 /7 Form Approved by City ttorney Adopted by Council: Date � ' Adoption Ce 'fied by Co cil�e etary By: ' ;� / ' BY� Approved by Mayor for Submi sion to Approved by M�y r: Dat� [�F� 9 19�� Council • i / f By: �;=a��.�l��'Y-/ By: ����e���M�I����l � � 31 ! Council File # / �i Green Sheet # RESOLUTION ITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To � Committee: Date 1 A RESOLUTION CONCE G DEDICATED STATE FUNDING FOR MASS TR IT 2 AND THE CREATION OF A MINNESOTA TRANSIT TRUST FUND 3 4 WHEREAS, the public demand for efficient means of travel through the metropolitan rea is 5 increasing more rapidly than govemments ability to construct highways; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the current mass transit system in the metropolitan area does not a quately meet 8 current needs and will be unable to meet increased future demands; and , 9 �� 10 WHEREAS, funding sources that may be used to e�and existing transit sys�ems and to develop 11 new transit systems are very limited; 12 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Pau� supports the creation of a 14 Minnesota Transit Trust Fund financed with a dedicated source of st�te revenues for the sole 15 purpose of funding the operational costs of mass transit; and be it,, 16 17 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the funding source(s) for the Minnesota Transit Trust Fund should 18 be some portion of revenues raised through the Minnesota V�hicle Excise Tax (MVET) or State 19 Gasoline Tax; and be it ;� 20 % 21 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a first priority use of th Transit Trust Fund revenues should be the 22 expansion of eausting mass transit systems, including t current bus system, to the extent that this is 23 necessary to provide an adequate level of bus servic in the regional transit system; and be it 24 25 FINALLY RESOLVED, that a second priority e of the Transit Trust Fund should be the 26 development of new transit systems, but that t 's secondary use should not be e�lored until an 27 adequate level of bus service in the metropol' an area is developed. ,r Yeas Navs Ab'sent Requested by Department of: imon .!' �_ oswitz � on 4 �- %, �� � et man i � une � ,,` BY: �� Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date� pEc � 1991 Adoption Certified by C ,nci'� S cretary gy: �� ; ��, BY� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Approved by ayor Dat _ B d;'�es'����/ By' Y• S ��frf"�:-(-� 4 �� ra�-'-I L E G I S L A T I V E P R I O R I T I E S � � � � `l ' & T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Saint Paul Specific Issues Paae "A" Priorities CSSP Tourism/Cultural District HRA Expansion of Powers Photo Cop City/County Traffic Violations: Administrative Tags and Revenue Share Capital Bonding Authority Reauthorization Como Park Debt Service/Metropolitan Parks Funding "B" Priorities Maternal Child Health Metropolitan State University Ayd Mill Road State-wide Issues of Concern to Saint Paul "A" Priorities Property Tax Relief: Local Government Aid Constitutional Dedication of Sales Tax Tax Exempt Properties Fiscal Disparities Housing Issues Polluted Lands MELSA Funding Parking Tag Fine Collection URAP Housing Court "B" Priorities Public Safety Issues .-�� Metropolitan Transportation Trust Fund Immunization Transferability/Medical Records Presidential Primary Funding Service Charge Definition Change Health Care Access PRIORITY SETTINGS "A" priority indicates a major issue area to which the City would devote a large amount of time and resources. For Saint Paul Specific issues this means introducing and supporting legislation to seek new laws or regulations. For State-wide issues this means working actively with legislators and other groups to seek new laws or regulations or to uphold existing laws or regulations, and when appropriate introduce legislation. "B" priority indicates issue areas that are important to the City and for which the City would spend time supporting the efforts of others. This could also mean, in limited cases, that the City would introduce legislation.