HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 05171983 (2) Meeting Sheet
11111 gill 11111 11.11 go 11 loll $III mill
100388
BOX: ZS
Folder: PL PACKETS 1983
Document: PL PACKET 05171983
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
7: 30 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2 . Roll Call.
3. Minutes .
a. Planning Commission - May 17 , 1983.
4. Designate Commission Representative to the Council Meeting
on June 28 , 1983.
® 5 . Public Hearings .
a. 7 : 30 P.M. - Request from Arkand Partnership for an approval
for a Planned- Unit Development Concept Plan.
6 . Zoning and Ordinance Variations .
7. Old Business .
8. New Business .
9 . Miscellaneous.
a. Capital Improvements Planning.
b. Summary of Variances/Conditional Uses for 1981-1982 .
10 . Adjournment.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
; • PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES
May 17, 1983.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Makowske at 8 :00 P.M.
Present for roll call -Zawisla-k, Jones, Makowske , Bjorklund, Wagner
and Franzese.
Absent : Bowerman.
Also present :. David Childs , City Manager..
Typographical errors in the March 15th minutes..were corrected as follows :
.s
Page 4 , para. 5: Substitute "play" for "plan" .
Page 5 , para. -4 : Substitute "ratio" for "ration" .
Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Franzese .
: to approve as. -corrected the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
held March 15 , 1983.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Wagner agreed. to present the minutes of the meeting to the
iCouncil at their May_.24.th__meeting:.
Mr;:--.EhYds indicated he anticipated the Redevelopers.-Contract for the
Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment . Project .would be signed during the H.R.A.
meeting scheduled that same evening and that the plans for the Planned
Unit' Development for Phase -1 would -be- completed so they- could be pre-
sented for consideration at a public hearing before the Commission
early in June.
Motion by Commissioner- Bjorklund and seconded by Chair Makowske to
request the City Manager to- reschedule the public .hearing which had
been postponed for May 17th whenever the plans. for Phase l of the Kenzie
Terrace Redevelopment. .Pro,ject are completed and. the- Redevelopers
Contract is signed..
Motion carried unanimously . .
Commissioner Bjorklund had prepared .a listing of "Parlimentary Pro-.
cedures at a Glance" which had been distributed for ready reference by
the Commission members . The .Chair acknowledged the invaluable guidance
in this area which- had been provided by the Commissioner over the years
he has served on. the Commission.
At 8: 08 P.M. , she opened the public hearing on the requested variance
to the City. Sign.- Ordinance which .would permit additional signage for.
B. J. Antiqu'e's:;"�2530 ::Harding Street N.E. , than what is already allowed
in the ordinance ,- by reading the notice of the- hearing which had been
mailed to all property owners. within 350 feet of the antiques shop and
-2-
published May 5th, in the Bulletin. No one present reported failure to
receive the notice or objected to its content. •
In the absence of the- applicant, . Russell Underhill, 2518 Hayes Street
N.E. , the Manager explained that Mr. Underhill was requesting he be
permitted to attach -an eight foot wide, two foot long sign to the
existing "For Lease" sign at the Kenzie Terrace entrance -to the St.
Anthony Village Shopping Center,- which Max Saliterman, the sign owner
had agreed to in writing. The Manager said the antique shop proprietor
had told him he believes his customers are having difficulty locating
him in the center without that signage.
Mr. Childs .reported. that. Mr. Underhill has been advised that the staff
would be recommending denial of his request for the .reasons addressed
in the May 13th memorandum from the Public Works Director, and it
would, therefore, be to the advantage of the applicant to present his
request in person.
No one appeared to speak for or against the variance and the hearing
was closed at 8: 15 P.M. for a determination by the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Zawislak and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund
to recommend the Council deny the request from Russell Underhill for
a variance to the Sign Ordinance which would permit the antique shop
proprietor to attach an 8 ' X 2'. sign to- the existing non-conforming
sign at the entrance to St. Anthony Village Shopping Center finding that:
(1) The new Sign Ordinance permits the identification of each tenant
in the shopping center with signage on the building itself and pro- •
hibits a general listing of tenants on the signage for the center ,
which might well be the precedent set if the request were approved.
(2) Clone of the conditions set for granting any variance to the sign
ordinance appear to- have been addressed in the application , specifi-
cally, that (''a) there would appear to be no particular hardship for
this business than would be experienced by other commercial .busi-
nesses in the same center if the strict letter of the regulations
are adhered to , and (b) the condition upon which the application
was based could not be considered to be unique to this parcel
and not applicable, generally, , to other stores in the same center .
(3) The failure of the applicant to be present for the . consideration
of his request precluded any other recommendation, based on the
information which had been submitted.
(4) The manner in which the sign to which the requested signage would
. be attached has...been maintained would seem to. justify not adding
to it.
Motion carried unanimously .
Mr. Childs reported .the Burger Chef franchise had been sold to- the
parent company of..-Hardees and the former Burger Chef- franchisees , •
Mr. and -Mrs . Ken: Johnson.- intend to continue to• rum the restaurant at.
4004 Silver Lake Road as a Hardees restaurant. They are .therefo.re
-3-
required to replace the Burger Chef identification with that of the new
franchise which would necessitate removing the chef 's hat in the sign,
thereby shortening the sign by two feet. The Manager said he had
brought the matter to the Commission to see if they concurred that the
change could- be interpreted to be only a copy change and would not
require a new variance for that non-conforming sign.
)( Mr. and Mrs.. Johnson were present and had submitted detailed drawings
of the word .changes for the sign which would now be only approximately
four and a half feet tall, not counting the pole .on which it is mounted
on the roof .
Commissioner Jones indicated he lives close to -the restaurant and. per-.
ceives. the Johnsons have been good neighbors because they have kept
the property and the grounds up so well. He believed there should be
no variance required because there had been no change in ownership
and the only change in the sign itself .had been to make it smaller.
Motion by Commissioner. Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund
to indicate the Planning Commission concurs with the City Manager that
the change in signage for the new Hardees restaurant at 4004 Silver
Lake Road should be interpreted to be no more than a sign copy change
and should not require a new variance to be granted because :
(1) Although it has a new name , the restaurant would have the same
owner and franchisee.
• (2) The business would be_s.imi.lar_.to what it had_been..__
(3) The new sign would require less square footage than for which the ,
original variance was granted.
(4) The owner and franchisee had no control over the change in signage
since it was required by the new parent company.
(5) The, lighting of the sign .would not be intensified and there would
be no "bells or whistles" involved in the change .
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr . Childs then reported another business , Firestone , which is in the
same area had approached him regarding the redesigning of their existing
signage but had returned to the drawing board when he had told them
they could not increase the square footage without a variance .
When the Chair inquired about the letter of opposition which the Com-
mission .had .requested be sent regarding the legislation which would
have set requirements for granting variances and conditional use
permits which would have been difficult to administer, the Manager told
her the legislation was changed, making the letter unnecessary . He also
reported his secretary has set up the -system of recording all the
variances .which were granted. in 1981 and;;. 1982 as well as all 1983 trans-
actions . She-will. tackle .the job of recording all,.,..the .variances ,granted
prior -to 1-9.81 next,, which he said would be very difficult since no
formal -system has been followed in the past.
�J
-4-
Mr. Childs said he hopes to furnish the worksheets and information
necessary for the Commission to ' establish a six year Capital Investment •
Plan for the City, including possibly having speakers who can instruct
them on how they should go about setting up the program.
He reiterated that he would schedule the P.U.D. hearing as early in June
as he can because .the developers are anxious to get started during this
construction season.
When Commissioner Jones asked about the reference in the Council ' s
April 26th minutes to questions raised by Craig Morris ' neighbor,
Mr. Childs told him Mrs. Behan had been given some erroneous informa-
tion by Mr. Morris regarding the ownership of the property on which
her townhome was built. He had advised her that it was her property
over which the beauty shop proprietor had been driving and if he cut
across her sod again she should call the police.
Commissioner Zawislak said he would be attending the League of Minnesota
Cities meeting in June as a representative of another municipality
and. he wondered if there would any planning issues which might warrant
the attendance of other Commissioners . Mr. Childs will find out and
let them know, he said.
He then distributed copies of an April 22nd letter from W. H. Kelly
as well as a Certificate of Survey- for Lot 2 , Block 21 Apache Plaza
on which Mr. Kelly had indicated if the lot can be split in half, he
has purchasers for one parcel for a chinese restaurant. The Manager •
indicated he was only seeking Commission reaction to creating two
undersize commercial lots on the vacant land between the Firestone
station and Apache Medical Center on Stinson Boulevard. He said the
division would leave only 75 foot frontage where 100 is required for
comercial development, but Mr. Kelly believes the fact that his pro-
perty fronts on two streets should compensate for the non-conformance
of the lot size.
Commissioner Bjorklund. indicated he believes building such a restaurant
within the Apache Complex would be less of a problem because of. the
parking space which is available but he doubted a restaurant could be
squeezed onto less than a 15 , 000 square foot lot and still maintain
the required sideyard setbacks . He noted that "another restaurant
along Stinson would give it the appearance of a "strip" but was advised
the City would have no control over that since restaurants are permitted
uses in Commercial Districts .
Commissioner Jones saw four entrances on two small lots as too tight
and indicated he believed parking would be a real problem.
Commissioner Zawislak commented that the Pizza Hut property is possibly
twice . the size and they still have a problem with parking .
Mr. Childs will convey their concerns :to the persons who want to build-
the restaurantif. they come in 'to . see .him. He also indicated he would
contact the Apache :manag:ement` to s:ee what could be -done about the old •
...non-conforming Apache sign : on the- corner of . 39th Avenue and Stinson
Boulevard.,,
,rte_
-5-
When the Chair asked what would happen to all the licenses granted to
• Chick' s if it is true that the business is moving out of the St.
Anthony Village Shopping Center, the Manager told her those licenses
are non-refundable and non-transferable and any change would have .to
be made in March: , He also told her it must have been an oversight that
the Planning Commission had not been notified of the H.R.A. meeting
- which had been held May 10th, but there should be no problem with the
next meeting because Mr. Wagner would be representing the Commission
- at the Council meeting the same night and could remain for the H.R.A.
meeting as well.
The Manager also indicated he believed the Council agenda could be.
adjusted so there .would not be such a long wait before the Commission.
minutes are considered.
Commissioner Franzese reported on the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities Coalition for Sensible Land Use seminar she had recently
attended. She indicated she had found particularly interesting the
sharp contrast in philosophies about zoning evident between municipalities .
As an example, the Commissioner cited Roseville where zoning is
,} established ahead of development and Eagan where the Mayor has indi-
cated he believes zoning before development tends to restrict creativity.
Commissioner Franzese also noted Eagan has set up minimal square footage
for housing.
Referring back to the new record keeping system for variances and con-
ditional use permits , Commissioner Jones said he hopes the costs of
setting up the system . and processing variances , including staff time ,
would be figured into the application fees and not absorbed by the
taxpayers .
Commission members had been given copies of the new ordinances and the
Chair pointed several errors and omissions she had noticed which the
Manager indicated would be changed.
Commissioner Franzese said she had noticed there - had been a number of
door to door solicitations lately and she wondered if they had been
cleared by the City . Mr . Childs told her COACT had been authorized
to solicit by a letter from the State Attorney' s office, which takes
precedence over the City regulations , but he doubted whether the
others had received permission to make door to door sales . He advised
the Commissioners to call the police if there is any doubt about persons
who come to their doors .
Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Franzese to
adjourn the meeting at 9 : 10 P .M.
"Motion carried unanimously .
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe , Secretary
• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing before the
Planning. Commission of the City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, June 21,
1983,. at 7: 30 P.M. and before the City Council on Tuesday, June 28 ,
1983 at 7: 45 P.M. , in the Council Chambers of the City Hall (enter
northeast corner) , 3301 Silver Lake Road for the purpose :
Request from the Arkand Partnership for approval of a Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan consisting of 134 condominium units to
be located on the north side of Kenzie Terrace between the Lowry
Grove Mobile Home Park and the American Legion. The legal des-
cription of said property is as follows :
That part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section Seven (7) , Township
Twenty-nine (29) North, Range Twenty-three (23) West of the
Fourth Principal Meridian described as follows : commencing
at the point of intersection of a line drawn parallel with
and 1079 . 8 feet North of the South line of said Northwest 1/4
with the original Northwesterly line of the County State Aid
Highway No. 153, also known as Kenzie Terrace , formerly known
as County Highway No. 33, said Northwesterly line being 33
feet Northwesterly of, measured at right ,angles, to the
• centerline of said Highway; thence Southwesterly along the
original Northwesterly line of said County Highway 300 feet
to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be
described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
original Northwesterly line of said County Highway, 300 feetz
thence Northerly to a point 1141. 74 feet East of the West
line of said Northwest 1/4 and 1079 . 8 feet North of the South
line of said Northwest 1/4; thence East parallel with the
South line of said Northwest 1/4 to an intersection with a
line drawn Northwesterly from the actual point of beginning
and at right angles to the original Northwesterly line of
said County Highway; thence Southeasterly along said right
angle line to the actual point of beginning, except that part
thereof taken for the widening of County Highway No. 33
according to the United States Government Survey thereof ,
situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota; (Property Identifica-
tion No. 07 029 23 24 0003. )
and
The Easterly One Hundred (100) feet of that part of the South
One-half (S 1/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) , Section
Seven (7) , Township Twenty-nine (29) , Range Twenty-three
(23) , beginning at a point in the South line of said Tract
One Hundred (100) feet East of the Southwest corner -thereof ,
thence .North Ten Hundred Seventy-nine and 8/10 (1079 . 8) feet ,
thence .East parallel to the South line of said quarter
• section Ten Hundred Forty-one and 74/100 (1041 ..74) feet,
thence South to center of State Highway No. 63, thence
Southwesterly along said center line of State Highway No. 63 •
and St. Anthony and Taylor Falls Road to intersection of
center line of said road with the South line of said quarter
section, thence west along said latter line of the point of
beginning, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Property
Identification No. . 07 029 23 24 0004 . )
Information relating to this application is on file in the City
Administrative Offices and is available for review during regular
business hours.
Anyone wishing .to be heard with. reference to the above shall be
heard at said time and place.
David M. Childs
City Manager
Publish: June 9 , 1983
•
1 1 N ) 1. •- ZFi 16.2 c G r(.� _ �/� 4V/.•
y
ol
.8�1
2 3 28d 28!7 N
27TH AVENUE N.E.
At .V
'L •
LOWRY GROVE
.: Il'— .
i. PLANNEP UN 1TvEi,o
s MOBIL MANOR
Lai
�� `��F� { � � 1 •., •
V BA ILK �.
' p
0 ,
Lf
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 16 , 1983
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: David M. Childs , City Manager
SUBJECT: Capital Improvements Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your information are the following items :
(1) Brief description of Capital Improvement Planning from League
of Minnesota Cities publication, "Handbook for Statutory
Cities" .
(2) More detailed description of Capital Improvement programming
from the International City Management Association publication ,
"The Practice of Local Government Planning" .
• (3) The section of the 1980 City of St. Anthony Comprehensive
Plan dealing with capital improvements .
I am trying to schedule a representative of the State Department of
Economics Planning and Development to give a short talk on the
process and how to get started. I am tentatively scheduling that
for the July 19th Planning Commission meeting .
DMC/cjk
6. It helps preserve the community credit rat- and debts that would hamstring its ability to fin-
ing by preventing an over-extension of cre- ante more important capital improvements at a
dit and maintaining at all times a credit re- later date. Where there is no city planning commis-
serve for emergencies. sion, the capital budget should be prepared by a
planning consultant, the council, or by the clerk.
7. It integrates the plans and projects of all (For more information, on one aspect of capital
municipal departments and agencies thereby budgeting, see League memo "Building Reserves
eliminating conflicting and overlapping proj- for Public Works.")
ects.
8. By insuring prior consideration for all capi-
tal improvements, it helps guarantee ample
time for detailed and careful planning of the
actual program.
The responsibility for capital budgeting usually
should be entrusted to the chief administrative offi-
cer:the clerk,clerk-administrator,or city manager.
Aiding this person should be the council, a com-
mittee of the council, the city planning commis-
sion,and the treasurer or other chief fiscal officer.
The following procedure is generally used in
capital budgeting. A priority listing is made of an-
ticipated capital improvements — usually those
thought needed within 8 to 10 years. With this in-
formation in hand,a careful evaluation is made of
all the listed projects,eliminating those which over- 1
lap or duplicate. Then,a priority list of capital im-
Capital Improvement Budgeting provements is made on the basis of need,consid-
ering the community's present and future program
Capital budgeting,as previously defined,is a list- of public services.
ing of needed capital improvements,giving their
order of priority,and describing the means of fin- These improvement projects are then woven into
ancing them. Besides being one of the major tools a six-year capital improvement program on the basis
of planning,a capital budget can provide some or of the established priority. When viewed in the i
all of the following advantages: light of the community's financial situation,it may
be found that some of the projects must be defer-
1. It keeps the public informed about future red beyond the six-year improvement period,and
needs and protects the councilmembers from others deferred indefinitely. Following this,those
pressure groups seeking projects well down projects to be recommended for the coming bud-
on the priority list. get year must be selected. This,in effect,becomes
the recommended program.
2. It will often reduce or stabilize the tax rate.
The priorities established in the capital budget
3. It establishes an orderly capital improvement program for the following years remain tentative
program,preventing the peaks and valleys in and should be reviewed annually. At such time,
a community's debt retirement program. consideration should also be given to the addition
of new projects and the deletion of others already
4. Frequently, it allows a community to move on the list.
gradually to a pay-as-you-go program of capi-
tal expenditure financing for a considerable Although capital budgeting, from this descrip-
portion of its improvements. tion, may appear cumbersome and unwieldy for
the small city, this is actually not the case. The J
5. Under it, capHal improvements are carried smaller the city the more important capital budget-
out in a logical and orderly manner,rather ing becomes. A capital budget provides protection
than on a hapgazard basis, to the small city helping it to avoid commitments
RIE
I'
Finance and Budgeting 129
important, the system, while complex in structure, is straightforward in Ian-
guage and thereby gives the city commission, Dayton's legislative body, an op-
portunity to simultaneously discuss policies and dollars.
Zero-base budgeting During the late 1970s yet another budget system was re-
ceiving attention. This was the concept of zero-base budgeting(ZBB). First de-
veloped by a private industry(by Texas Instruments), the concept was adopted
by a number of state agencies and governments. Perhaps the most famous ex-
ample of the adoption of zero-base budgeting was Georgia under then Governor
Jimmy Carter.
The essence of ZBB strikes at the heart of traditional "nonrational" budget
making: the practice of taking last year's budget as a given and adding a little for
inflation and expanding programs. Under ZBB, last year is a closed book;
everything must be justified as though it were a new program.
The major steps and elements of ZBB are as follows:
I. The isolating of"decision units."
2. The analysis of the decision units and the documentation of the analysis into
?; ti "decision packages."
. ._. 3. The ranking of the decision packages in order of priority by management.
4. The final compilation of the budget. based on the rankings.0
A decision unit is a cost center or activity that makes sense as an analytical
unit. For each unit,goals and objectives must be specified,costs estimated, and
_ performance criteria identified. Of critical importance is the definition of differ-
ent levels of service so that decision makers can choose the level of service that
the community wants to support. Under ZBB it thus becomes possible to
choose levels of service that are lower than last year's. or at least to prevent
automatic cost increases. In addition. it may be possible to perform the service
in an alternative way.
One cannot predict the degree to which ZBB will be adopted by local govern- II
ments. But it may be an attractive system to both mature cities with shrinking
tax bases and rapidly growing cities whose service demands may grow at an
exceedingly rapid rate if they are not well managed.
i
Capital improvements programming
The 1909 Burnham plan of Chicago is the traditional benchmark for the
beginning of modern city planning. The plan is usually mentioned together
with the City Beautiful movement. What generally is not said is that the plan
contained a discussion of how bond issues would be required to finance the '
plan's public works proposals. One urban historian has noted that Chicago built
5300 million (about $2 billion in 1980 dollars) of public improvements to imple-
ment the plan in the first fifteen years.10 In retrospect, it was an astonishing
achievement.
While the Chicago experience taught the significant principle that public ex-
penditures are an important link in implementing comprehensive plans, it was
not until the late 1920s that the concept of capital improvements programming
began to emerge as a c•ontinrting element of municipal planning and fiscal man-
agement. A number of cities began to realize that the planning of capital im-
provements was a distinctly different process from annual budgeting. In es-
sence, as capital improvements were increasingly financed by public borrowing
it was necessary to undertake financial analyses that projected the community's
ability to pay in the future: that analyzed and projected ways in which debt was
to be amortized,-and that analyzed the choices to be made when the number of
potential,=::mp-rovements exceeded the financial capacity of a community.
The expo_,. �_ti __-A cities in the Great Depression of the 1930s, when numer-
130 The Practice of Local Go%cernrnc nt Planning
I
ous cities became bankrupt; and during World War II, when many cities post-
poned public improvements,gave a fresh impetus to the careful planning of pub-.
lic facilities. Basic concepts of capital improvements programming have come
►' down to the present generally intact. Thus, the capital improvements program
(CIP) has become a thoroughly tested, useful planning tool:
This quick glance at the history of the CIP needs to be supplemented by an
observation: the CIP and land use controls such as zoning and land subdivision
regulations evolved at roughly the same time. However, the number of cities
that used land use controls grew much more rapidly than the number of cities
i that used the CIP. When the planning community was at the crossroads
between regulation and budgeting, it took the regulation route and virtually ig-
nored the budgetary route. Given modern insights of political science that show
the importance of governmental budgeting and decision making, it is evident
that the planning community took a crucial turn toward regulation when it
should have been moving along both avenues simultaneously. The resulting im-
balance in implementation tools has not been corrected even today, except in a
few central cities where regulation is no longer as important, and a growing
number of suburban communities that are integrating budgetary decision
making within growth management systems.
Definitions
Capital improvements programming is the multiyear scheduling of public physi-
cal improvements. The scheduling is based on studies of fiscal resources avail-
;-� able and the choice of specific improvements to be constructed for,a period of
five or six years into the future. The capital improvements budget refers to
those facilities that are programmed for the next fiscal year. A capital improve-
ments program refers to the improvements that are scheduled in the succeeding
four or five year period. An important distinction between the capital budget
and the capital improvements program is that the one year budget may become
a part of the legally adopted annual operating budget,while the longer-term pro-
gram does not necessarily have legal significance, nor does it necessarily com-
mit a government to a particular expenditure in a particular year.
The definition of a capital improvement may be different in different cities.
The common definition of a capital improvement includes new or expanded
physical facilities that are relatively large size,expensive,and permanent. Some
f common examples include streets and expressways, public libraries, water and
lsewer lines, and park and recreation facilities. In smaller communities certain
expenditures, such as the purchase of a fire engine, may also be considered a
capital expenditure. There is an extremely important fiscal planning principle
underlying this definition, which is that capital improvements should include
only those expenditures for physical facilities with relatively long-term useful-
ness and permanence. Capital improvements should not include expenditures
for equipment or services that prudent management defines as operating budget
items and which ought to be financed out of current revenues. A number of
large cities that invented financial "gimmicks" by placing noncapital expendi-
tures into the capital budget during the late 1960s and early 1970s found
themselves in serious financial difficulties by the late 1970s.
The benefits of a CIP
An effective capital improvements programming process can lead to many ben-
efits to local government. Specifically, the CIP can ensure that plans for com-
munity facilities are carried out; can allow improvement proposals to be tested
against a set of policies; can better schedule public improvements that require
more than one year to construct; can provide an opportunity, assuming funds
.4r are available, to purchase land before costs go up: can provide an opportunity
�r.
Finance and Budgeting 131
• for long-range financial planning and management; can help stabilize tax rates
through intelligent debt management;can avoid-such mismanagement as paving
a street one year and tearing it up the next to build a sewer;can offer an oppor-
tunity for citizens and public interest groups to participate in decision making;
and can contribute to a better overall management of city affairs.
How capital improvements are financed
Because most capital investments involve the outlay of substantial funds, local
government can seldom pay for these facilities through annual appropriations in
the annual operating budget. Therefore, numerous techniques have evolved to
enable local government to pay for capital improvements over a longer period of
.time than a single year. Most but not all of the techniques involve financial in-
struments, such as bonds, in which a government borrows money from inves-
tors(both institutional and individual)and pays the principal and interest over a
number of years. Most of these techniques are carefully prescribed by state law..
In addition, whether a governmental unit uses these techniques may depend on
such financial factors as bond ratings given cities by bond rating services, cur-
rent interest rates for municipal securities,and the current outstanding debt that
the unit is already obligated to pay.
State laws governing local government finance and the literature of public fi-
nance classify techniques that are used to finance capital improvements. These
techniques are discussed below.
Current revenue(pay-as-you-go) Pay-as-you-go is the financing of improvements
from current revenues such as general taxation, fees, service charges, special
funds, or special assessments.
.';s •
Reserve funds In reserve fund financing, funds are accumulated in advance for
capital construction or purchase. The accumulation may result from surplus or
earmarked operational revenues. funds in depreciation reserves, or the sale of
capital assets.
R General obligation bonds Some projects may be financed by general obligation
*� bonds. Through this method, the taxing power of the jurisdiction is pledged to
pay interest and principal to retire the debt. General obligation bonds can be
sold to finance permanent'types of improvements such as schools, municipal
buildings, parks, and recreation facilities. Voter approval may be required.
Revenue bonds Revenue bonds frequently are sold for projects, such as water
and sewer systems,that produce revenues. Such bonds usually are not included
in state imposed debt limits, as are general obligation bonds, because they are
not backed by the full faith and credit of the local jurisdiction but are financed in
the long run through service charges or fees. However, these bonds may have
supplemental guarantees. The interest rates are almost always higher than those
of general obligation bonds, and voter approval is seldom required.
Lease-purchase Local governments using the lease-purchase method prepare
specifications for a needed public works project that is constructed by a private
company or authority. The facility is then leased to the jurisdiction. At the end
of the lease period the title to the. facility can be conveyed to the local govern
ment without any future payments. The rental over the years will have paid the
total original cost plus interest.
• Authorities and special districts Special authorities or districts may be created,
- usually to,provide'a single service such as schools,water,sewage treatment,toll
roads, or parks. Sometimes these authorities are formed to avoid restrictive
i
1' 132 The Practice of Local Government Planning
local-government debt limits and also to finance facilities serving more than one.
Ij jurisdiction. They may.be financed .through revenue bonds retired by user
charges, although some authorities have the power to tax..
Special,assessments Public works that benefit particular' properties may be fi-
nanced more equitably by special assessment:that is,they are financed b'y_those
)' who directly benefit. Local improvements often financed by this.method include.
street paving, sanitary sewers;.and water mains.
State and federal grants State and federal grants-in-aid are available to finance a
large number of programs. These may include streets, water and sewer facili-
ties, airports, and parks and playgrounds. The cost of funding these facilities
may be borne completely by grant funds,or a local share may be'required. Fed-
eral revenue sharing and Community Development Block Grants have given
local governments more choice in how to spend their grant money. Much of this
money has been used to finance capital improvements.
Tax increment financing Tax increment financing may be used to provide front
end funds in an area where large scale redevelopment is feasible: A district
1 around the proposed development is designated with a tax base equivalent to
the values of all the property within the area. The tax revenues paid to taxing
units are computed on the initially established tax base during the redevelop-
ment period, which is usually the expected life of the project. The area is then
redeveloped with finds from the sale of tax increment bonds. These bonds are
sold by the municipality or a specially created taxing district for acquisition, re-
location, demolition, administration, and site improvements. Because of the
higher value of the newly developed property in the district, more tax revenue is
collected and the tax "increment" above the initially established level goes into
a fund to retire the bonds. After the development is completed and the bonds
i' are retired, the tax revenues from the enhanced tax base are distributed
normally.
Fiscal policies
Careful fiscal analysis and the adoption of specific fiscal policies must be the
foundation of a local CIP. Long-range financial studies and forecasts must be
made. Typically, they are conducted by the jurisdiction's finance officer, or in
small communities by the local government manager's office. At the minimum
such analysis should include the preparation of tables showing the amortization
of all outstanding debt. Since local government can issue bonds that mature
over long periods of time, this analysis will have to look ahead for more than a
decade. As a practical matter, more intensive analysis and forecasting are done
for the next five year period. These forecasts focus on the local general eco-
nomic situation and the extent to.which it may affect long-term local govern-
ment revenues. For growing communities the analysis may show the degree to r
which various categories of revenue—property taxes, fees and licenses, state t
aid, income taxes, and other sources-will grow in the future. For stable or
declining'communities, such as mature central cities, such an analysis may t
show that because the economic base of the city is declining(for example, man-
ufacturing and retailing establishments are moving to the suburbs)the local tax
base may also be declining.
Anticipated revenues must then be compared with anticipated expenditures
for.capital improvements, personnel services, and pension plans, and other J:
costs must be projected to determine whether projected revenues and expendi-
tures are in balance or whether surpluses or deficits are forecast. The financial
analysis can provide useful information. However, it is essential that the analy-
Finance and Budgeting 133
` sis leads to the development of fiscal policies.These policies should address the (�(
major problems or implications identified in the financial analysis and should I
provide more specific guidance to the budget and planning departments as well
as the operating departments that propose capital improvements. Policies would
I
address such issues as: the maximum amount of debt the local government is
willing to take on;the types of revenue devices that will or will not be used;the
annual amount of debt service that the operating budget can absorb;the specific
I types of projects or facilities that must be self-sufficient through user fees or
other charges; and the degree to which local government will seek state or fed-
eral grants-in-aid.
In recent years a number of communities have begun to adopt fiscal policies
that are related to strategic community objectives. For example, mature central
"r cities are increasingly adopting policies that relate expenditures to economic de-
velopment objectives.These cities may adopt policies to finance those improve-
ments that are most likely to maintain or attract an industrial or commercial
base, create new jobs for local residents, or generate private investments in II
neighborhood revitalization. Older cities that are in serious financial difficulty
are even debating policies that target expenditures to certain neighborhoods or
areas and consciously write off those areas that may be beyond help.
In rapidly developing newer communities fiscal policies are being adopted
that will, for example, ensure environmental objectives by purchasing critical
environmental areas, by purchasing parklands, or by creating greenbelts that
will help shape urban growth. These communities are also paying more atten-
tion to the secondary impacts of capital investments so that capital facilities,
such as major sewer trunks and major expressways, are located and pro-
grammed in areas where the community wants growth to occur and denied or
delayed in those areas the community does not want to see developed.
The CIP administrative process
Earlier in this chapter the annual budgeting process was described. The capital
improvements portion of that process is often a distinct element that flows
through local government in separate channels. In some communities the CIP
process may actually occur earlier in the annual cycle. The separate channels
for the CIP come about principally because the planning agency may be the key
coordinator for capital expenditures. while a budget office or city managers of-
fice may be the coordinator for all operating expenditures.The CIP process may
also involve additional public hearings by the planning commission. Whatever
procedure is used. the process normally takes several months to complete. Ob-
viously.the process varies from city to city.but the description below should be
considered relatively typical.
The first step in a CIP process is the analysis of the fiscal resources of the
community—the revenue and expenditure projections discussed above. This is
typically conducted by the finance office. After this analysis the local gov-
ernment manager or mayor will meet with key aides and legislators to discuss
the implications of the analysis for setting fiscal policies.
The next step is the directive issued by the chief executive officer to all de-
partment heads requiring that they submit proposed capital improvements
projects to the agency administering the CIP. This is usually the planning
agency or finance office.The directive is accompanied by forms,deadline dates,
and the identification of key meeting dates. The directive will also contain the
fiscal policies discussed above.
The planning agency will then usually provide the detailed project forms, and
instructions to departments for completing the project forms. If new procedures
have been adopted there may also be a.CIP manual that describes the process
and the products to be submitted. The rea.,or for this internal red tape is to en-
r
a
134 The Practice of Local Government PMgla.villQ Q.
4 I
�s him s �I
w w ry O
w
z PQ aR g o o z °�EEEE�
y
i r I O OI I I J V L O N C >A y1,1 LyE oy
+•1 1.1 1+1 V �O�L•� ��N 2 C d 6 L Q
V �a► LL r l G E nE>L N C u v
� _ LL I OWN dLr°•CV d d O.
I � e = VCU4 s, LL AONy 0^
i p «d l IF na O G O C N
O.' L«r.••�C G
L-1 N c=^N d u YA mu
ZS w L L L y A J C L L y Uy O d L d (fl
L GO A>
M 00:; TCL oa�N�g N�a E
n i ��
d�«o� _O�
C
cc0
D t t
is ♦ N O O•^•�L L OIF d d V G
1. � .m Z =� +1 N ? Ili G� ��Up pA6 OOLrWL'ppVI CUp ONC7♦« fn
T Y1 CC O I y/ �O E C N yop O Y�L• ^GPi^Y`p�p 7
J s�w d C L EN C'•�uNi A LJ Y
'1l,{ G �� M d^ LL`°V «OCIFdCV'pa�pOp a
li I ,ywy ~ O r
JJ L L O C d N > « M
4� ECp a M a ti r., _N ILNyy�+`W>yer°.YUgyyae3a�YN^� aEi
I. - I � < N f N N N � F•.L•LR eN LL��C CNLUaY�' �
e = dC L A O A r IF
t 7 O Agdr NNL�e .Y Y�Ypp
II Z J N W
A >+�EE M^64 C�DOdCLL� i (4
O N 4 NY GN6 AM^F • 1
F O
{�� � 2V OM L�IF Gd Y CC T NoLr� a
u Z c W.Sc5 i3 on u o9t5vuXc��-=aOEOUNCI°LNFOOI'
`f o!
it
Il
I
II
i I 1
Finance and Budgeting 135
t
sure that essential information about each project be prepared and submitted in
s importance
standard ways. Of particular importance, in addition to the obvious mpo
project justification
cost estimates, is that ial that relationships between P of cts be cited.
nation purposes it is als o essen
For example, a particular new water main will be constructed in the right-of-
t; ted street rt neighborhood project.
way of a vaca ow a particular project
In addition, departm ents should be equired t discuss
relates to previously adopted plans and.policies.
Departments will usually place priorities on proposals being submitted.Thus,
a great many choices are actually made within functional articularly closely areawith departments.
is essential that the,planning agency work p
Following the submission of all project proposals to the CIP agency, numer-
ous meetings are held at or,and department heads discuss,critique,ntiquofficer,and h m
government manager, Y
mer out project proposals.The objective at this juncture is to pull together a CI
that is sensitive to the policies that have been adopted; that contains projects
related to city development objectives; and that results in a product communi
manager or mayor can submit to the city's legislative body. Insome
ties the administration's proposals are first presented to the planning commis-seldo
Sion, and public hearings are
t h cal a Normally,e includesespeakerscand epresen as
such public hearings. YP
tives from citywide citizen groups, neighborhood associations, Chambers o
r Commerce, downtown improvement interests, and similar groups.
Communities that are;yin foster
variety of techniqueslt'Some co'mmutnities,
` the CIP process will tYP Y use a
'F or example. may appoint special ad hoc citizen committees to assist the plan-
for
commission or legislative body. If these committees are to function ade-
quately they require extensive staff support and frequent meetings—during the
"Ali entire CIP process and not just at the end. opportunity also for more detailed small
ings at the neighborhood level to give an opp Y
area.input. A fundamental) angle exact—and d these the citizen input cannotlalways be
necessity and by la g typical citizen groups are far more interested in
accomplished quickly. Also,
their own neighborhoods than in citywide or areawide decision-making pro-
cesses that deal with broad policy. the chief execu-
The CIP is presented to the jurisdiction's udget messlages. Depending on local prac- �
rive officer together with any special i
rice. the CIP and the operating he legislative budget e body holdscnusmerous meet ngs and pub-
at this point. Normally, g
lic hearings. For a legislative body the budget making time of year is the busiest
and most hectic time.
After the legislative body determines dopt d"'it should be understood that�there n s
choices, the CIP is adopted. By "
a significant difference between he choices for the first program—the are elatively firm.
get—and the remaining Y policy
I
For future t err the
han adoption specific o and firm choice a about'projects.sIt should also be
direction rather
understood that even though the CIP may be adopted with the annual operating
budget it will still be
during.the budget tyear forspecific rojects . Ordinances
priating specific fun
will also be required authorizing the issuance of bonds or other financial
instruments.
The problem of choice:priorities with the.
gement.fields have had es experience
The planning and mana
to be a vexing
CIP process., Nevertheless, the setting of p rit
•� 1. `..J '
i
136 The Practice of Local Government Planning
'f problem. Choosing what projects will.tie built and what projects will not be built
I I is the most crucial step in."the CIP-process, yet it continues to be troublesome.
For example, how does a city decide-which is more important—enlarging a wa-
Ij terline, building a new library, purchasing more parkland, or repaving a street?
I In a more "quaint'era planners thought that one simply evaluated each project
i in terms of the coverage of the comprehensive plan and the facility plans(that is,
the park plan); the project was either in the plan or not. However, plans never
specifically identified all the potential projects that.can come up through the line
departments of city government. Moreover, as comprehensive plans have be-
come more policy-oriented they rarely identify specific projects. And some com-
munities have plans that are completely out-of-date or are still under prepara-
tion. Communities have responded to this problem in a variety of ways. some of
which will be discussed here.
One traditional and still widely used priority system divides proposed projects
into four categories: essential,desirable.acceptable,and deferrable.These cate-
gories are usually further defined in terms of whether a project contributes to
public safety, prevents.hazards. satisfies a critical need, or would be of benefit
but is not essential. Another type of priority system labels projects in terns of r
i criteria such as protection of life. public health maintenance, conservation of
natural resources. and replacement of obsolete facilities.
A moments reflection on these types of systems leads one to the conclusion
1 that they cannot be particularly helpful since the real criteria remain unarticu-
lated. What is the dividing line between essential and desirable'? is it more
important to reduce operating costs or to replace obsolete facilities?
One response to the priority problem that has been tried by some communi-
ties is the construction of scoring or point systems whereby a project is evalu-
ated in terms of a particular criterion(for example.contributing to public safety)
and a score of between, for example, I and 10. Using the internal logic of such
systems, it is to be assumed that projects that get a high score are more desir-
able. It cannot be overemphasized that such numerical systems should be very
cautiously used. They cannot be used as a substitute for judgment and. if not
carefully constructed and applied, they can do more harm than good. I
Recently, a number of communities have been reexamining the ways in
which they set priorities. These communities demonstrate a renewed interest in I.
coordinating capital investments with community development policies. A fre-
quently heard word—linkage—demonstrates increasing effort to explicitly link
community development policies with capital investment decisions. The Day-
ton illustration given earlier in this chapter is one example.
Ii The CIP of Memphis, Tennessee, is an illustration of recent efforts to link
�II priority systems to development policies. In Memphis, as is true in many other
mature cities, available public funds are shrinking. Therefore, the Memphis cri-
teria necessary to more precisely focus limited -
tena are based on the Idea that it t e ry p Y
available funds in projects and neighborhoods where they will do the most good.
These criteria are based on high priority areas for investment identified by the
city staff and are related to adopted neighborhood plans. The concept of high
I ,
priority areas for investment is based on the following concepts:
(1)Geographic areas of the City experiencing preliminary or advanced deterioration
have multiple problems which tend to be interrelated; (2) by treating problems ,
IIsimultaneously or in a coordinated manner, a greater impact can be made on an area
i than by treating each problem independently; (3) priority areas can be identified
based on the current conditions and needs of.these areas along with goals and
objectives of the Administration; (4) since funds-and manpower are limited in each
program area and City division, these limited funds should be directed to the same
accepted priority areas so that, for example, streets and drainage are improved and
housing rehabilitated as other capital and operating projects are implemented; (5) by
( concentrating improvements within designated priority areas, fragmentation is
�' reduced and impact is maximized."
Finance and Budgeting 137
It t
r
Memphis also has a clearly articulated policy concerning service extensions
at the urban fringe. That is, when capital projects are considered the first
3 _ priority is assigned to fully servicing substantially developed areas within the
=t ;` city. The second priority is assigned to projects that serve newly developed
areas contiguous to the city. The purpose of these two criteria is the avoidance
;r $ of costly.urban sprawl.
t Minneapolis has a priority evaluation rating system that its planning office
1e c believes is invaluable in achieving a balanced program.The Capital Long-Range
Improvements Committee (CLIC) uses citizen task-forces to evaluate,capital
improvements proposals.The CLIC considers the city's financial capability and
�- annually makes project recommendations, including bond,expenditure limits.
)f t
Proposals are,rated on a scale of 0 to 50 points according to fourteen factors.
is Among the community objectives are economic,development, further defined
as the extent to which the proposed capital improvements "will encourage capi-
tal investment, improve the City's tax base, improve job opportunities, attract
° consumers to the City,or produce public or private revenues,"and-public bene-
fit fit,defined as the extent to which the proposed capital improvement"is justified
)f in terms of number of people to be benefited." The CLIC also receives advice
)f Pe P
and recommendations on capital improvements from the city planning commis-
sion. The planning commission prepares a checklist that contains many policy-
n related items for departments to follow in making referrals to the commission.
�- This checklist is contained in Figure 5-4.
e Priority setting is a particular problem for the small community that has few
x professional staff members and must rely more on lay persons for decision
making. An example (Figure 5-5) prepared by a consultant for Franklin, Mas-
sachusetts. shows how 'it is possible to use a simple easy-to-use checklist for
✓) priority setting.
h -
r-
'Y • _ The CIP process and intergovernmental relations
it
The pattern of intergovern mental relations in metropolitan areas has profound
n effects on urban planning. The literature on metropolitan area problems and in-
n tergovernmental relations is vast and cannot even be reviewed here. However.
several circumstances rise out of this fragmented pattern and have profound im-
k pacts on the local CIP process. What is relevant for purposes of this chapter are
✓ two basic factors and the implications that flow from them. First is the fact that
the vast majority of metropolitan areas contain small fragmented municipal gov-
ernments and a number of separate special districts:and second is the very sub-
°r stantial growth. if not dependence, of cities on state and federal grant-in-aid
F programs.
d The-issue of governmental fragmentation that relates to the CIP process is
1. that certain important facilities, especially sewage treatment plants and their re-
ie lated major sewer trunk lines. and major expressways and highways, are built
.h by either state or special district governments and not by local governments.
There is a growing understanding on the part of urban scholars and officials that
these key facilities can trigger, accelerate, or retard the speed and pattern of
urban growth—in other words, they are the growth shapers. The decisions of
a the governmental bodies that plan and construct these facilities have a profound
impact on local government and it is the local government that must then pro-
vide the local capital facilities and public services to serve'the growth thus gen-
erated. Thus, local government may not always have complete control over its
destiny.
A number of steps have-been taken to coordinate such planning and develop-
' merit at the'metropolitan level. Many metropolitan planning agencies are adopt-
ing metropolitan development policies and trying(often struggling) to influence
these key investment decisions. However, even though many metropolitan
I
138 The Practice of Local Government Planning
I':, Project. Factor
I�
•
Goals'and Extent proposal contributes to the goals and objectives of the requesting
I objectives agency and/or governing authority
I
Standards and Extent proposal conforms to criteria and standards established by
criteria requesting agency and/or governing authority
Service limits Extent that existence (or absence),of public or private facilities limits (or
denies)the provision of adequate services in area
I
Environmental Extent proposal may improve environmental quality of the city and its
quality neighborhoods
I
I
Quality of life Extent proposal would offer opportunities for improving the quality of life for
residents in terms of personal enrichment and living conditions
Special need Extent proposal meets a community obligation to serve a special need of a
segment of the city's population, including low/moderate income, aged.
minorities, handicapped, etc.
Health, safety. Extent proposal eliminates conditions detrimental to health, safety, and
general welfare general welfare of the community
Service Extent proposal improves the citywide distribution of related services
distribution
Economic Extent proposal will encourage capital investment, improve the city's tax
development base; improve job.cpportunities. attract consumers to the city, or produce
public or private revenues
1 • Public benefit Extent proposal cost is justified in terms of number of persons to be
benefited
i -
Cost-effective Extent proposal may be cost-effective in terms of capital and probable
operating costs
Commitment Extent proposal is acceptable in terms of possible future commitments to
Fprovide similar improvements in other areas of the city
Coordination Extent proposal appears to be coordinated with other public or private
11 l� projects or facilities
Neighborhood Extent of efforts made to inform area residents about proposal and involve 1
involvement them in its planning
i
i
j Total priority points:
Figure 5-4 Priority evaluation formula,rated on a scale of 0 to 50 points,
according to fourteen factors. Where application of priority formula does
not seem to result in adequate score for a project, the task force may
iJ request CLIC to add up to 50 points.
i
agencies are governed by locally elected officials,the primary focus of.the met-
ropolitan agency is on areawide problems and'not necessarily on local impacts
of capital investment decisions. Another technique that-has-been used is the A-
95 metropolitan review process whereby federally funded projects must receive
comments from a-metropolitan agency. Here; again, comments are usually fo-
cused on policy issues of metropolitan significance and not necessarily on local
impacts. In some metropolitan areas the local impact problem may be over-
"': looked when the metropolitan planning agency itself does not control the trans-
il I ,
Finance and Budgeting 139
_ The following checklist should help in considering the secondary consequences of building
• capital facilities or making other capital outlays.All questions are structured so that yes answers
indicate an impact consistent with town policy as expressed in "Planning for Franklin,"the
Residents' Master Plan Studies, 1974-76.
Not
Yea No applicable
1. Will this project either leave unchanged or slow the rate —
of population growth in Franklin? —
2. Is the amount of growth that this project is designed to
serve consistent with the most recent projections of the
planning board?
or 3. Will this project either leave unchanged or increase —
the ratio of jobs in Franklin to residents of Franklin?
4. If the project is likely to stimulate residential
a development in an area, as opposed to townwide,
a) Will that development be totally in the center or —
suburban district?
b) Will that development be partially in the center
or suburban district? —
c) Can the stimulated growth in that area be —
serviced with roads, schools, utilities, etc.,
without further town investments? —
d) Are existing development controls adequate to
relieve all other concerns about the stimulated —
growth in that area?
c
;e 5. If the project is likely to slow residential development
in an area, as opposed to townwide.
a) Is that area in the rural district? —
b) Are one or more public service systems in the —
area being used at or near capacity?
6. If the project is likely to stimulate commercial or
E industrial development in an area. as opposed to
townwlde
S_ a) Is that area now zoned for commerce or industry? —
to b) Can the stimulated development be adequately
serviced with roads, utilities, etc.. without further
town investments?
c) Are existing development controls adequate to
relieve all other concerns about the stimulated
growth? —
Ive 7. If located in a rural district, will this project itself be
free of characteristics leading to an urbanized
"character"? —
Figure 5-5 Priority setting checklist proposed for the town of Franklin,
Massachusetts.
portation planning process. or when it does not have influence over special dis-
tricts that construct sewage treatment facilities. A handful of metropolitan
agencies have begun areawide capital improvements programs.These programs
et- attempt to at least identify capital investments.being made by various govern-
-ts mental levels and then inform major decision making units of government.These
k— projects are demonstration projects that, as yet,- have not demonstrated their
ve sensitivity to local policy problems.
fo- At the local government level a number of steps can be taken to at least.ex-
cal change information. A local governmental unit can survey capital investment
er- plans of overlapping governments and special districts that will be built within
ns-• the jurisdiction.This activity can at least inform local officials, who then may
IL
140 The Practice of Local Government
want to take political action; it also provides an opportunity to coordinate
O projects,that will be built by different units in the same-part of the community.
', Some-communities have organized intergovernmental bonding committees that
attempt to keep each other informed as to bonds that-.will be issued by the gov- ,
-ernments involved. This is a particularly important step, because when a com-
munity-'s bonds are rated by investment services the amount of overlapping debt
on taxpayers is a relevant factor in the safety of.the security.
State and federal grants-in-aid present another set of-problems for local gov-
ernment. While local governments react favorably,to state and federal programs -
.-that can help them undertake capital improvements projects. there are some
problems that require careful attention from local officials and planners dealing
with capital investments.
One such problem is that grant programs can distort economic choices and
can skew local decision making. Federal money may be available for certain
capital improvements but not for others. The tendency is for local governments
to choose those projects that can be funded in part through federal or state pro-
grams. Capital facilities that do not have a grant program to support them may
go begging. The grant formula for the balance between federal or state and local
cost can also skew decision making. For example, for more than a decade the
federal urban mass transportation system program provided that the federal
government would pay up to 80 percent of the cost of a transit capital program.
On the other hand, an interstate highway going through a locality would be
funded by a federal formula that provided for the federal government to pay 90
percent of a highway project. Clearly, it can cost local government more to
choose transit instead of highways.
The U.S. Congress's cycle of providing authorizations and appropriations or
grant-in-aid programs can also be troublesome to local government. For example,
O Congress may pass a new grant program with a span of five years and with a
total authorization of a lump sum or up to certain amounts for each year of the
program. However, until Congress appropriates the money for a particular pro-
gram in a particular year, that money is not available. Moreover, appropriations
may be below annual authorization levels. To add to the misery of local govern-
ment financial planners Congress also has the habit of appropriating money sev-
eral months into a fiscal year, and then local governments are forced to try to
carry out programs and spend money designed for a twelve month period in,for
example, seven or eight months.
During the 1950s and the 1960s the number of categorical grant programs—
that is programs for a single function or program—grew to the point where fed-
eral, state,and local officials realized that coordinating multiple programs at the
local level is a serious problem. Two of the most significant pieces of federal
legislation—general revenue sharing and the Community Development Block
Grant program—have enabled local governments to have a far greater voice in
spending federal money. Moreover,the flow of funds has become more regular,
thus allowing better programming of capital investments. These federal pro-
grams have also been supplemented by other funds for public works such as
funds administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic De-
velopment Administration. A significant development in the area of federal
transportation policy has(as mentioned earlier)enabled local officials to choose
between federal aid for mass transit or for highways.
The local CIP process is also very heavily influenced by other types of im-
pacts of federal programs. For example, as both major metropolitan areas and
small communities have discovered, environmental standards for water quality
management have resulted in the requirement that-local government agencies
spend enormous amounts of money to help maintain and improve water quality.
O New and major improvements in sewage treatment plants and the construction
of major trunk sewer lines may require local communities to postpone other
Finance and Budgeting 141
e capital investments. In addition,the secondary impacts of federal,capital-related
1 71 programs are not yet well understood, let alone controlled. For example, a fed-
it eral or state environmental requirement may force a local government unit to
�. build a trunk sewer line in a particular-location. While this capital investment
!_ achieves certain environmental objectives, the construction of it can also open
!t up vast areas of land for urban development. Local land use plans may not have !
' proposed such development.
As can be seen even from this short discussion, local government capital in-
s vestments can be greatly.influenced by other levels of government. The degree
e to. which local government units can use capital investments to shape urban
g growth will determine the extent to which the CIP serves as an effective manage-
y ment tool.
d n
n The CIP process and the political process
v�
is
>, The procedures discussed in this chapter for the CIP and the local budget em-
►-
y :_r phasize concepts, techniques, and bureaucratic routines that are essential.to-a
tl ; well-managed local government. The neat, rational process described does not
e really explain completely the complex political process that is taking place
d simultaneously, often outside the bureaucratic technical process. A favorite
r pastime of some academics(albeit unsophisticated ones)is to take planning and ,
e "ti management literature describing such routines and then compare real world
fl case studies to the routines. These analyses always come to the conclusion that
o "things don't always work that way." However, this does not mean budgetary
processes are obsolete, unrealistic, or naive—it simply means that the process !
)r = is more complicated.
The purpose of this section is to make some generalizations from the litera-
ti ture (see the bibliography to this chapter)that describe the richness of local gov
e ernment budgetary decision making.
r_ • One set of observations that have been made relates to common patterns of
action within a government's technical bureaucracy. For example, heads of
s
operating departments are far more interested in their own departmental priori-
ties than they are in citywide policy issues. Thus, the public works director is
o - more interested in sewer construction than in park acquisition. Also. given the
- fact that most department heads are running ongoing programs and services.
)r
they are more interested in solving current problems than in building an infra-
_ structure for an urban land use policy program. Generally. but not always, the
1- department administrator's time horizon may be shorter than the planner's.
1e Naturally. all department heads ask for more than they expect to get: therefore.
KI projects listed near the bottom of a priority list may be of next to no importance.
k Moreover, politically astute department heads frequently establish informal re-
n lationships with elected officials, especially council committees related to their
own areas of interest:therefore,they have built a consensus on certain projects.
Another general observation relates to when capital investment decisions are .
s made. Manv investment decisions are made outside the annual CIP process.
For example, emergencies can occur in the middle of the budget year and ex-
penditures must be made. Decisions on capital investments may be made as po-
e litical promises during campaigns and then implemented after new officials take
office. A few major capital.investment decisions may be made when a compre-
hensive plan is adopted. More commonly, however, many key investment deci-
d sions are made at the time when neighborhood or district plans.are.prepared.
y Also,new programs and projects become possible because of a new state.law or
s federal program.The point here is that not all decision making is postponed until
that time of year when the CIP is being prepared.
Some of the literature deals with the role of elected officials in the budgetary
r process: In general, elected officials.are engaged in a constant negotiating pro-
142 -The Practice of Local Government Planning '
cess with public and private, interests'that want improvements or that oppose .
certain improvements. The continuing bargaining process makes the elected of-
ficial reluctant'to commit himself or herself for too many years in advance:
Therefore, programs for future years are not as firm as they appear. In fact,one
I of the bargaining devices that is frequently resorted to is to program a particular
improvement for a particular future year. As the next budget cycle comes
around the project may "move up"a year,and sometimes can be moved back a
year.It should be understood that many projects bounce from year to year in
the capital program but never arrive in the capital budget. Because elected offi-
cials.are involved in this negotiating process, they also have some reluctance to
explicitly identify and publicly announce all capital investment policies and
priorities. They want to maintain flexibility and the opportunity to change their
minds.
There are certain investment decisions and styles of decision making that are
irresistible to elected officials and, therefore. are inevitable. These are: a desire
to keep tax rates down: a desire to spread capital improvements throughout the
city so that each neighborhood "gets something": a tendency to "give in" to
vocal community and neighborhood groups—and sometimes ignore such opin-
ion:a tendency to balance,expend itures and allocate cuts and additions "across
the board" among all city departments: a tendency at times to avoid seeking
certain federal or state grants if there are too many strings attached,and a strong
tendency to jealously guard the capital investment decision-making process to
the point where technicians do not really participate and often do not know why
certain decisions are made.
The relationship of the CIP
to other planning tools
• Comprehensive planning At one time "master" plans were so specific that par-
ticular facilities were identified.Now,as plans become more policy-oriented they
may provide only a very general guide to investment decisions. On the other
hand, community or neighborhood level plans and plans for small communities
4 may still contain a degree of specificity that makes it easy to know whether a
particular improvement does or does not conform to policy.
Plans prepared for particular functional elements—the park plan and the pub-
lic library plan,for example—can also be quite specific as to improvements. In
fact, some plans go so far as to make broad cost estimates as to implementa-
tion of proposals. This practice is to be recommended because it gives elected
officials a far better idea of what it might cost to follow a planner's
recommendations.
jWhat may be the beginning of some new trends is illustrated by recent de-
velopments concerning the relationship of the CIP to comprehensive,planning. I
j At the suburban fringe a growing number of communities are constructing so-
called growth management systems in which the CIP is an important compo-
nent. Thus, communities such as Ramapo, New York, carefully try to relate
this comprehensive plan to the CIP and to zoning and subdivision regulation.
Permits for development are based on whether or not certain community facili-
ties either are in place or are programmed in the CIP.
'I It is also interesting to note that in several older central cities(as in Philadel-
phia, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh) the CIP is the "centerpiece" of the planning j
'M program. In these cities the CIP is a very important activity and annual and mul-
tiyear development programs and policies are developed so as to be interrelated
I with annual capital budget decisions.
'f The relationship between the planning function and the budgeting function
• has been taken a step further in Atlanta. A department of planning and budget
was created that is responsible for both urban planning and financial planning.
Finance and Budgeting 143
ie ? The ordinance creating the department specifically requires the preparation of
'f- development programs relating to capital investments for one,five,and ten year
C. horizons.
to The relationship between the CIP and traditional zoning and land subdivision
ar regulation administration is also growing more intimate in many suburban com-
:s s munities. In addition to the Ramapo example,cited above,a growing number of
a t communities are adopting either ordinances or policies that permit or deny zon-
in ing and subdivision permits on the basis of whether there are adequate public
fi- facilities. These policies and ordinances are based on the desire to extend utili-
1d ties in the most efficient way and to prevent urban sprawl. A number of growth
management systems may permit private developers to install public facilities at
'�r their own expense if these facilities are not scheduled until later years.
Subdivision regulation administration(see Chapter 14)also relates to the CIP
re in that there has been a historical trend to require developers to install utilities
re and other public facilities at their own expense.This policy in effect shifts some
1e of the public costs for capital facilities out of the public budget and into the bud-
to get of the private developer and,therefore,to the eventual home buyer. In addi-
n- tion, while state laws are relatively silent on the point, it is widely known that
ss extensive negotiations go on between private developers and public bodies as to
ig who pays for major public facilities required by new urban development.This is
Ig particularly the case in planned unit developments and other large scale de-
to velopments such as shopping centers and industrial parks. When local govern-
iy ment perceives that there are economic development or tax advantages to en-
couraging industrial and commercial development, local government will
frequently pay the cost of utility extensions in order to promote private
investment.
x- Special assessments In more mature communities special assessments are the
Y
t principal way of financing purely local street and utility improvements. Special
er assessment districts are set up whereby properties that benefit from a particular
°s improvement(for example,a new street)actually share the costs of providing it.
a This is another technique that shifts capital facility costs away from public
budgets.
b-
In Communing development and renewal Community development and renewal
a projects often require large capital investments such as new streets, utilities,
'c1 and parks. Chapter 16 covers many of the substantive issues that community
s development raises. The point here is that an extensive amount of coordination
is required between the CIP and federal and state funds and private funds to be
e- expended in a particular area. One recent trend in large cities is the coordination
g. and coupling of a variety of programs in community development, transporta-
o- tion, and public works—incorporating CETA funds—with the objective of sta-
o- bilizing neighborhoods, renewing business and industrial districts, and creating
to new jobs (see Chapter 20). It should be noted that extensive negotiations may
n. _ also go on between public bodies and private developers in joint public develop-
li- ments. Public bodies again may be willing to pay for certain improvements in
order to make private investment possible. The Dearborn Park project in Chi-
21- cago, where vast areas of railroad yardlland are being redeveloped into a "new
ng town in-town." is but one example.
al-
ed Mandatory referral A number of state enabling acts and local charters provide
that, when capitaffacil[ties are built by either the governmental unit or.indepen-
°n dent special districts, the plans for such capital facilities be referred to the local
;et planning commission or planning department for comment. When the capital
1g' • facility is being built by the governmental unit itself, the planning agency com-
144 The Practice of Local Gor,ernrr'tent Planning ~
i
ments may have some force.However, when_independent governmental units I
are constructing facilities, the advice is usually only advisory.
Annexation At the urban fringe, newly developing areas seek to be annexed to
a municipality so as to save on certain urban services, such as police protection,
fire protection,and public utilities. A few states;such as Illinois, permit the exe-
cution of annexation agreements whereby local governments and private devel-
opers may negotiate as to public facility improvement costs. Even in states
without such enabling laws, governments frequently have exercised such nego-
tiating powers because of their strong bargaining position. Again, the issue here
is the shifts and balances between private and public expenditures for capital
facilities.
Official maps Several states have provisions whereby local government can
adopt official map ordinances. These ordinances permit local governments to
specify the location of particular improvements—such as future park sites or
the right-of-way for a future street—on a map.The designation of such a site on
the official map puts private property owners on notice of a governments
intention to construct a public facility. Placement of land within such an area
may permit governments to deny zoning and building permits so that the even-
tual cost of acquisition may not become prohibitive. However,there is usually a
strict time limit(between one and three years)by the end of which a public body
must purchase or condemn the land.
Cost–revenue studies as a management tool'
• Up to this point the emphasis in this chapter has been on public revenue and
cost issues, relating to planning,that focus on citywide policy issues. Sources of
revenue, intergovernmental aid. the budgeting function, and capital improve-
ments programming tend to be comprehensive views that relate to fundamental
broad policy issues. This section deals with the public revenue and cost factors
involved when government is regulating new development or redevelopment.
These techniques are used to help analyze or manage a particular development
at a specific time and place.
The concept of comparing public costs and revenues of a particular develop-
ment proposal had its modern roots in the planning field in the late 1930s. The
1920s had seen a large amount of subdividing of properties into residential
neighborhoods that were "premature" in that they remained forever vacant. A
number of communities were trying to renew these "dead" subdivisions and
would prepare simple analyses that showed how much more money would flow
into the city treasury if the land were developed with improvements instead of
remaining tax delinquent.
Beginning in the late 1940s and the 1950s cost–revenue concepts were used in
both central city and suburban planning situations.In the central city context
urban renewal project.reports would frequently contain estimates showing how
little tax revenue was now being generated by a'deteriorated neighborhood and
how much it cost to service that neighborhood; these reports would then com-
pare revenues and expenditures of the area after renewal.
In the suburban context the 1950s was a time of:aggressive annexation in
many communities. Because planning agencies did not control the precise loca-
tion of urban development,they had to take annexation requests from wherever
they came and in whatever location. The cost of extending major sewer and
water lines and serving new populations encouraged planners and public admin-
istrators to study the costs and revenues of annexing a particular area.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s the focus of cost–revenue studies shifted to
the problem of growth management. This came about through a combination of
factors: inflation and the resulting increasing public costs for all services; a
Capital Improvements Program
+� ) TABLE 14
Municipal Revenue Sources, 7974-1978
The preparation and annual updating of a municipal Capital Improvement -
Program will help ensure that major City purchases are consistent -with
municipal revenues and supportive of the various elements of the City- Fund 1974 1975 1976 . 1977 1978
Comprehensive Plan and their periodic refinements. Presented below is par-
ticular financial information of the City of St. Anthony and a proposed
Capital- Improvements Program for the years 1979, 1980, and 1981: General S 790,018 '826,147 902,697 992,179' -1,008,235
Recent Historical Financial Profile (1974-1978) Revenue Sharing 42,893 45,579 51,270 51,260 48,095
• Revenue sources Fire 1,410 10,012 10,645 11,269 13,545
.• Indebtedness (by type and schedule)
• Total assessed property value (1978) State Aid 10,736 8,052 11,241 7,948 8,534
• Expenditures (Road Maint.)
- Operating
- Maintenance Police 8,681 8,651 8,159 18,024 22,470
- Capital
Improvement 401,189 409,058 371,419 435,364 522,854
Projected Revenues and Expenditures (1979-1984)
Construction 14,355 9,631 230,203 53,407 4,440
• General Fund
• Sewer Fund _ ^ Bonds 0 30,560 11,396 11,131. 18,009
• Water Fund y�
Sewer 116,819 154,.117 164,860 212,463 218,651
Water 182,628 169,324 213,124 192,135 188,186
Liquor 2,385;496 2,714,217 2,152,841 2,524,126 2,284,673
Recreation 41,242 40,069 18,670 0 0
CETA 0 0 0 0 976
Block Program 0 0 0 0 69,012
Source: City of St. Anthony, 1979.
A7
88
TABLE 14
Municipal Indebtedness ) TABLE 16
Municipal Operating Expenditures, 1974-1978
Outstanding 12-31-78
Fund 1978 1975 1976 1977 1978
• Water Works Bonds of 1962 8 25,000 _
(Water Revenue Fund)
(Final payment due in 1979) General $779,099 921,351 966,404 1,030,406 979,728
• Water Utility of 1963 8 25,000 Revenue Sharing 53 64 76 32 6•
(Water Revenue Fund)
(Final payment due in 1979) CETA' 0 0 0 3,838 66,180
• Special Improvement Bonds E 990,000 Improvement Bonds 409,988 371,205 333,103 253,095 234,814
(3 different issues)
Debt Bonds 0 0 12,871 11,155 10,471
City's Indebtedness as of 12-31-78: 51,040,000 Sewer 100,833 137,110 149,550 203,455 223,754
Water 63,686 79,348 85,258 90,376 121,276
TOTAL ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUATION Construction 64,939 32,203 715,398 59,561 0
• 1978/1979 Assessed Valuation: 841,498,478
• 1978 Community Development Block Grant Program
Tennis Courts S 15,914
Congregate Dining 535
Source: City of St. Anthony, 1979. Park Shelter Building 9,372
Senior Citizens Center 2,652
Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment 1,570
S 30,043
• 1977 Community Development Block Gant Program
Congregate Dining $ 242
Park Shelter Building 5,925
Senior Citizens Center 663
8 6,830
" Fund established: 1977
Source: City of St. Anthony, 1979.
89
90
TABLE 17
TABLE 19
Municipal Maintenance Expenditures, 1974-1978 i
Projected Revenues of the General Funds
Fund 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979-1984
General $10,888 11,882 51,387* 13,538 44,677
State Aid 5,350 6,017 8,835 13,993 15,098 Budget Item 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19F--z
Sewer 966 1,429 2,128 3,362 3,722
Base Property Taxi) $424,011 695,245 736,960 781,178 828,049 877.-
Water 8,827 17,438 13,344 23,162 7,258 St. Aid ' 231,880
" Civic Center Remodeling Sp. Property Tax Levy(2) 55,826 56,000 58,000 60;000 62,000 64,.:.:
Transfers: -
Source: City of St. Anthony, 1979. Liquor(3) 300,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 340,000 340.---
Water(4) 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22.--
Sewer(5) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 To.--
Fire(6) 8,000 _ 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10.
Police(7) 15,000 15,500 16,000 16,500 17,000 17-.
Rev. Sharing(8) 55,000 55,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50_-
TABLE 18 Other(91 20,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Municipal Capital Expenditures, 1974-1978 Licenses(10) 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8.=
Permits(ii) 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 4.,;i
Lines, Forfeits Pen.(12) 20,000 23,000 23,000 25,000 25,000 2T-
Fund 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Contracted Ser.113) 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,000 5,500 5.-
Mobile Home Regis.(14) 700 700 700 750 750
General $28,491 8,930 58,508 16,999 36,191 Interest(15) 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.__-
Misc. Rev.(16) 20,000 20,000 22,000 22,000 23,000 23".:
CETA 0 0 0 0 609
Sewer 5,972 0 3,533 5,300 15,653
TOTAL REVENUES - $1,192,817 1,266,945 1,311,160 1,361,428 1,429,799 1,485.-
Water 63,439 9,099 7,490 7,611 19,164 _
Construction 0 0 0 0 40,484*
Fire 0 0 63,240 0 0 TOTAL EXPEND. $1,192,817 1,244,025 1,309,975 1,405,960 1,498,020 1,607-,-=
(Incl. Capital)
Police 495 9,396 0 0 0
SURPLUS (+) or $ 0 +22,920' +1,185 -44,532. -68,221 177--
Debt Bonds 0 29,700 0 0 0 DEFICIT (-)
tats Aid 23,183 0 0 0 0
Deficits could be eliminated by using reserves, levying more taxes If feasible arts
* Traffic Signals legal under the levy limits, or by reducing services and staffing.
Source: City of St. Anthony, 1979. Source: 'City of St. Anthony, 1979.
91 a
Notes to Projected Revenues of General Fund
1 ) TABLE 19
(1) Assumes the 6% increase in levy authority increase allowed under law,
no change in the levy restrictions either in liberalization or a more Projected Expenditures of the General Fund,
conservative approach, and stability in the City's population. The
last may be unrealistic - the population is declining. 1980-1984
(2) Assumes relative stability In levy amounts and few changes in the
kinds-of special levies allowed.
(3) Assumes profit stabilization at a relatively high level and few Budget Item 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
recessions. To achieve this performance, a new liquor store may be
necessary. If not constructed, profit could probably shrink drasti-
cally after 1987, when the current lease.expires at Apache Plaza. City Council $ 32,500 34,500 37,200 39,800 42,600
City Management 61,000 65,200 69,750 74,600 79,800
(4) This could possibly be increased somewhat' but it could mean a rate Accounting 98,000 105,000 113,000 122,000 130,000
increase. Assessing 16,500 18,000 19,200 20,600 22,000
Legal 31,600 33,200 35,500 38,000 40,700
(5) The sewer fund is in poor financial condition and a transfer of this Buildings 73,000 79,000. 85,000 92,000 101,000
size may be difficult to maintain without significant rate increases. Fire 242,000 258,000 275,000 295,000 315,000
Police 350,000 372,000 398,000 422,000 450,000
(6) Relative stability in this revenue source Is assumed as it is passed Inspections 12,775 13,350 14,160 15,170 16,180
on from the state based upon a homeowner's insurance premium tax. Public Works 261,700 269,900 290,600 310,700 331,300
Other 37,050 46,025 51,050 53,000 58,180
(7) Similar to No. 6.
TOTAL $1,215,025 1,294,975 1,384,960 1,480,770 1,584,180
(8) Assumes continuation of this program at modest allocation increases.
The City's declining population would affect the allocation.
(9) Interest on General Fund Reserve 10A. If spent for other purposes,
such as capital improvements, this money would not be available. Capital
Improvements (Equipment budgeted in General Fund)
(10) Relative stability, few fee Increases assumed.
Squad Cars $ 14,000 1.5,000 16,000 17,250 18,500
(11) Relative stability, few fee increases assumed. Staff Cars 10,000 0 0 0 0
Public Works
(12) Fee increase foreseen, modest increase in tags, fines. Equipment 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000
Fire Equipment 0 0 0 0 0
(13) Assumes approximate C.O.L. increase in services rendered.
(14) Assumes little license fee Increase (state registration).
TOTAL $1,244,025 1,309,975 1,405,960 1,498,020 1,607,680
(15) Assumes modest cash balance In the General Fund.
(i6) Stability assumed.
Note: The above projections were based upon an estimated 7-8% annual
Increase In expenditure costs.
93
94
TABLE 20 \ > TABLE 24
Projected Revenues of the Sewer Fund, J Proposed Capital Improvements,
1980-1984
1979-1982
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Total
Projected
Revenues $ 246,925 262,950 279,975 301,110 324,260 PROJECT YEAR ESTIMATED COST PROPOSED FINANCING
Highcrest Road 1979 $253,000 .. Special Assessment, MSA Fund=_.
TABLE 21 Sewer Utility Fund.
projected Expenditures of the Sewer Fund, Apache Liquor 1979 $60,000-500,000 Internally (liquor funds) if
1980-1984 lounge remodeling only; 'other-
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 wise Revenue Sharing
Total St. Anthony Blvd. 1980 $350,000 Off-system Federal Aid State
Projected Railroad Bridge Funds, M.S.A. Funds
Expenditures $ 246,925 262,950 279,975 301,110 324,260
County Road "D" 1980 or .City Portion Special Assessments, M.S.A. F•,-
(Assumes constant rate increases to maintenance services.) 1981 $125,000
St. Anthony Blvd. 1980 or $500,000 M.S.A. Funds, Special Assessmr-
11 (If not given to 1981 (cannot assess Gross Golf Cour=
TABLE 22 Fr J Hennepin County) however, without permission o--
Park Board
Projected Revenues of the Water Fund,
1980-1984 Street Reconstruction 1980 or $200,000-400,000 Special Assessments, M.S.A. Fun=
1981 Reserve Funds
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ;
Total, 7 Muncipal Building Present Depends on Option G.O. bonds (subject to a refers
Projected t Lease $75,000-400,000 endum - highly doubtful), Resew
Revenues $ .182,425 182,425 182,425 182,425 182,425 Expires Fund, some options involve
9/81 little capital cost
Sanitary Sewer- 1980-81 Unknown: Sewer Fund (presently in poor
TABLE_.23 : Repairs Repairs: $30,000 condition), Reserve Funds,
Replacement/ Special Assessments
Projected Expendlture5-of lr.
.. :'the Water Fund, :''Repas:'E30,000.:`
1980-1984 .
to $150-,000
.1980 1981 , =c 1982_:. 1983 1984 Sidewalk Improvement 1980-81._, $25,000. =- C.D.B.G. Funds
Total
ProjeeteQi Water System Improve- 1981-82 $250,000 Water Utility Fund''
Expenditures $ 166,900 178,825 191,490 205,100 218,790 ments (Well and
Filtration Plant)
Surplus or Deficit ,E +15,735 + 3,600 - 9,065-c; -22,675 -36,365 Traffic Signals 1979-81 Unknown M.S:A. Funds
- - Lowry/Stinson
Source -- Tables 20-23: City of St. Anthony, 1979.
96
, OS
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, cont'd
I
i
PROJECT ,YEAR ESTIMATED COST PROPOSED FINANCING
i
! Sid'ewalk Recon- 1981 Unknown Assessments, Reserve Funds
struction St.
Anthony Blvd.
I
Police Squad Cars Every $71-000 - odd f .Certificates of Indebtedness,
year
Year $14,000 - even S General Nnd,•-or Reserves
year
Public Works Varies $10,.000+/yr. Certificates of.-Indebtedness,.
Equipment Replace- Average Cost General Fund.or Reserves
ment Program
Miscel.f'aneous (desks, Contin- $5;0.00-10,000/yr. Charged'to various funds
office equipment) uous
i
I
I -
97
i
i
MEMORANDUM .
DATE: June 16 , 1983.
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: David M. Childs, City Manager
SUBJECT: Summary of Variances/Conditional Uses for 1981-1982
• -----------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned earlier this year, Connie Kroeplin, Administrative
Secretary, has been working on these charts to assist in the
recordkeeping function and. to allow quick reference when compari-
son of similar variances/conditional uses are requested in the
future .
Since our recordskeeping system has not been exactly perfect
in the past, any comments , suggestions, or additional information
is welcome .
DMC/cjk
•
• 199 • `•i
PLANNI14G, COMMISSION/COUNCIL
Name/Address Request Planning Commission Council
Date Heard Action Date Heard Action
Hub�,,Manufacturing Changes in previously 1/20/81 Recommend 2/10/81 Approved
282_1 Anthony Lane approved plan - approval
Video Movie Center Conditional use 1/20/81 Recommend 2/10/81 Approved
Apache Plaza approval'
LaBelle ' s Sign variance for 2/17/81 Recommend 2/24/81 Approved
2500-38th Ave. N.E. store identification approval
Robert Christen Preliminary plat 4/21/81 Recommend 4/28/81 Approved
3501 , 3503 Silver approval
Lake Road
Faith -Methodist Church Sign variance for 4/21/81 Recommend 4/28/81 Approved
2708=33rd Ave. N.E. monument sign. approval
James Danelski Zoning (addition of 4/21/81 Postponed 4/28/81 Tabled
3301 Croft Drive family room and solar 5/19/81 No recom- 5/26/81 Tabled
heating) mendation
6/16/81 No' recom- 6/23/81 Approved
mendation
Sid Johnson Preliminary plat 5/19/81 Recommend 5/26/81 Approved
St. Anthony Court approval
Duane Fisher Rezoning 3301 Stinson 7/21/81 No recom- 7/28/81 Tabled
3329 Stinson Blvd. (Clark station) from mendation
C to R2 8/18/81 Gave Fisher 8/26/81 No action
100 days to
clear up
legal matters
Hub Manufacturing Sign variance for two 7/21/81 Recommend 7/28/81 Approved
2825 Anthony Lane ground lit monument approval
signs
1981 Page 2
Name/Address Request Planning Commission Council
Date Heard Action Date Heard Action
John Martens Sign variance for 8/18/81 Recommend 8/26/81 Approved
3808 Silver Lake -Rd. identification of Qwik Approval
Car Care
Sid Johnson Zoning variance for 11/17/81 Tabled 11/.24/81 Tabled
St. Anthony Court 238 sq. ft./unit 12/15/81 Recommend 1/5/82 Approved
(density) approval
1982
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL �)
Name Address Request Planning Commission Council
Date Heard Action Date Heard Action—
Cent,,ral Engineering Preliminary plat 1/19/82 Recommend 1/26/82 Approved
293,(JAnthony Lane approval
5 ' rearyard setback 1/19/82 Recommend 1/26/82 Approved
-� variance approval
Variance-parking 1/19/82 Recommend 1/26/82 No action
approval required
Robert Rivard 2 ' sideyard setback 1/19/82 Recommend 1/26/82 Approved
3331 Benjamin St. variance approval
Apache, Medical Complex Sign variance-free 1/19/82 Recommend 1/26/82 Tabled
4001 Stinson Blvd. standing approval
3/9/82 Approved
LeRoy Pearson Subdivision without 3/16/82 Recommend 3/23/82 Approved
3219 Shamrock Dr. platting-land conveyance approval
Ed Brown Replatting-area variance 3/16/82 - Recommend 3/23/82 Approved
2702-33rd Ave. N.E. approval
-------------------
David Taylor Replatting-area variance 3/16/82 Recommend 3/23/82 Approved
2700-33rd Ave. N.E. approval
Ila Clark Replatting-area variance 3/16/82 Recommend 3/23/82 Approved
2608-33rd Ave. * N.E. approval
Senior Federation 60 unit senior building 4/20/82 Recommend 4/27/82 Approved
vacant lot at approx. to comply with HUD approval
2651 Kenzie Terrace requirements
Orville Thompson 7 ' frontyard setback 5/18/82 Tabled
3302 Belden Dr. variance 6/15/82 Tabled
7/20/82 Recommend 7/27/82 Approved
approval
1982 Page 2
Name/Address Request Planning Commission . Council
Date Heard Action Date Heard Action
Keith Grewe Conditional use-body 5/18/82 Recommend ord--- 4/27/82 Recommend
1001 Orchard Ave. tanning salon inance amendment public hea
(Apache Plaza) and approval ing before
Planning
Commission
5/8/82 Approved
Kenneth Lee 12 ' subdivision without 7/20/82 Recommend 7/27/82 Approved
39'04 Penrod Lane platting from 3909 approval
Silver Lake Rd. to 3904
Penrod
Walter Parkins 5 ' rearyard variance 7/20/82 Recommend 7/27/82 Referred
3105-39th Ave. N.E. approval back to
Planning
- Commission
8/17/82 Recommend 8/24/82 Approved
approval
Mikland Park Preliminary plat 7/20/82 Tabled 7/27/82 Approved
Elmwood Lutheran Sign variance-free 8/17/82 Recommend 8/24/82 Approved
Church standing approval
3615 Chelmsford Rd.
Duane Doughty Conditional use-video 9/21/82 Recommend 9/28/82 Approved
Zimmeramn, MN sales/rental approval
(99� Video Club ,
2920 Pentagon)
John Kokesh Zoning ordinance 9/21/82 Request
12505-59th Ave. N. amendment-motorcycle withdrawn
(St. Anthony Village shops
Shopping Center)
• • 1982 Page
1�
Name/Address Request Planning Commission Council
Date Heard Action Date Heard Action
Zantigo Conditional use-drive 10/5/82 Recommend 10/12/82 Approved
3900 silver Lake Rd. in facility approval
Variance-parking 10/5/82 Recommend . . 10/12/82 Approved.
` approval
Sign variance-free 10/5/82 Tabled
standing monument
Impressions, Inc. Sign variances (2) - 11/16/82 Recommend 11/23/82 Approve
2908 Anthony Lane N.E. free standing approval of both
both
0
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
• BOARD OF REVIEW
May 10 , 1983
The Board of Review was called to order by Mayor Sundland at 6 : 30 P.M.
Present for 'roll -call: Marks , Ranallo, Sundland and Letourneau.
Enrooth arrived at 6 : 35 P.M.
Also present : David Childs , City Manager; Richard Becken , Hennepin
County Assessors Office; and Carol Johnson, Finance
Director.
The Mayor outlined the procedure which would be followed and ruled
that the practice of not. requesting a reevaluation where differences
would be less than $500 would be followed again this year. .
Mr. Becken told approximately two dozen residents who were present
that the 1983 estimated market value shown in the notices they had
received within the last few weeks would be the only issue before
the Board that evening.
' Mr . and Mrs . V.F. Scott indicated they were present to "find out what' s go-
ing to happen down the road" since the valuation of their property at 2520
Pahl Avenue N.E. , . had been raised in 1982 from $79 ,000 to $131 ,000 and to
• $123, 000 in 1983. Mr. Scott said he considers his home to be "overvalued"
now. Mr. Becken told him the 1982 raise had probably resulted from
onsite appraisal done by the County on all homes in the northeast
quadrant of the City that year and the 1983 valuation had been established
by computer for his home along with 750 of the remaining City homes
which were not given onsite appraisals . The County spokesman told
Mr. Scott there had been very little growth in valuations for single
family residences in the past year and, since the valuations are
based on the real estate market, those valuations should stay close to
where they are as long as the market stabilizes . He then advised the
City resident that he could ask for a reappraisal of his 1983 valua-
tion if he believes his home is overvalued and could file for an abate-
ment of his 1982 valuation. When Mr. Scott indicated he would rather
research the valuations which had been set in his . neighborhood before
risking another rise in valuation with another appraisal, Mr. Becken
told him once the appraisal is made, it is considered the "bottom line"
and values are not customarily raised with a reevaluation. The Scotts
requested no further .action be taken.
Michael Spielmann reported he had purchased the home at 2813 Silver
Lake Road, April 30th for $10 , 000 less than it had been evaluated for
1983, which did not seem equitable to him. He said the County appraiser
who he had requested to make a reappraisal of his home, had refused
to lower the valuation. Mr. Becken said he would recommend the Board
exercise its right -to direct that valuation be reduced to the amount
for which the property was sold, since the 1983 valuation should
• certainly reflect that price.
-2-
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
direct the Hennepin County Assessors to reduce the valuation of the •
Michael J. Spielmann property at 2813 Silver Lake Road back to the
purchase price paid for the property April 30 , 1983 .
Motion carried unanimously . _
Margaret Suhr, 3224 Chelmsford Road, indicated she was present to get
a better understanding of how. valuations are set and to determine
whether the raise she has received is out of line . The Mayor told her
a majority of the homes in St. Anthony received a 10 . 9% raise in 1982
which was based largely on the real estate sales made in the City the
previous year. Several examples of such sales, which would appear to
justify a raise in valuation, were cited from the booklet which had
been provided the Council members for reference . Mrs . Suhr ' s attention
was drawn to Mr. Childs' memorandum showing the valuation and taxes
for a $79, 000 home in St. Anthony , which illustrated just what portion
of the taxes were attributable to the City, - School District, County,
and Metro District. No further action was requested by the property
owner.
Roy Perzel, 2521 - 27th Avenue N.E. , requested a reappraisal of his
property saying his taxes had increas(.d almost 100 percent and the only
improvements he had made was a porch, which had no footings . Mr.
Becken agreed that it did not appear that such a porch could be
considered to add to the square footage of the home .
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to •
request that the property at 2521 - 27th Avenue N.E. be reappraised by
Hennepin County .
Motion carried unanimously.
William Tabaika, 2512 - 27th Avenue N.E. , indicated he was present to
try to find out why his property taxes had gone from $496 in 1982 to
$960 in 1983 and his valuation from %59 ,000 to $71 , 000 . The Mayor
said he could sympathize with him since he had experienced a similar
increase in taxes himself . When he asked whether Mr. Tabaika was
requesting a reappraisal of his property , the homeowner replied "Let
it ride. "
William R. Dougherty , 3101 Armour Terrace , reminded the Board that his
1982 valuation had been reduced following an onsite appriasal last
year but said it had gone right back up this year. Mr. Becken indicated
the reduction would not have been automatic in 1983 .
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to request
the County to reevaluate the property at 3101 Armour Terrace , as
requested by the owner.
Motion carried unanimously .
Nancy and George Soldatow were present to protest what they perceive
to be an unfair valuation of $106 , 000 for their 'property at 3217 - 32nd•
Avenue N.E. Ms . Soldatow reported they had bought the property for
$,20_. 000 less than its valuation 1979 and abatement reduced the- valuation
ich they
to-'-.._..;; . �e'1 they believe still to be too high for property for wh
-3-
could never get more than $100 , 000" . Because the Soldatows had their
property reappraised within the last two weeks , and were still unhappy
• with the ruling, Mr.. Becken told them he would record their protest
and advised them to set up an appearance before the County Board of
Equalization, which meets in July. Councilman Enrooth advised them
to bring any documents which supports their position, including the
real estate appraisal the couple had made, to the hearing.
George Kaczor, 3404 32nd Avenue N.E. , had brought with him several
newspaper articles which led him to -believe the valuation of his home
had been raised disportionately as compared to homes in such communities
as Edina who were ranked for higher taxes (or valuation) than St. .
Anthony. He also wanted to know why there is such a rapid rise for
homes with higher valuation. Mr. Childs said some of the data in the
papers was erroneous . For example , rather than a $1 ,000 raise for a
St. Anthony home worth $90, 000 , it would have been more accurate to
say an $80 , 000 home would have received a $1, 100 raise. He also told
Mr. Kaczor the first $60, 000 valuation receives $650 in Homestead .
Credit, and anything above that is taxed at a flat rate . When Mr .
Kaczor said his wife owns property in Minneapolis for which the valu-
ation is comparatively lower, the Mayor told him it is commonly
perceived that St. Anthony property is worth more to a potential buyer
than the same property in Minneapolis . Mr. . Becken .agreed that the
valuations are affected by neighboring properties . Mr. Kaczor said
he would prefer getting a list of properties from the County with
which' he could compare valuations to, requesting a reappraisal at this
time.
• Jack Weinstock , 3209 - 31st Avenue N.E. , told the Board he has had his
home up for sale and listed with a real estate firm for two summers and
has never received an offer to match the market value placed on it by
the County . He reported he has filed for an abatement for 1982 and
wanted an evaluation made for 1983 , since he assumed from the conversa-
tion that evening, that his 1983 valuation would not be automatically
lowered even if the 1982 abatement were granted.
Motion -by Councilman Marks and and seconded by Councilman Letourneau
to request Hennepin County to reevaluate the property at 3209 - 31st
Avenue N.E. for 1983 as requested by the owner .
Motion carried unanimously .
Ivar Slettemoen, 3027 - 31st Avenue N.E. , reported he has had his
property reappraised twice and his valuation dropped because the
County had the wrong square footage for the property from the time it
was built. He thought he should have gotten a .refund in taxes for all
fourteen years in which the home had been incorrectly valued. Mr.
Becken .told him, "the property can only be abated for the current year
plus two" . He also advised Mr . Slettemoen that at the same time he
could question the basis upon which the appraiser had ruled that a
laundry tub could be- combined with a stool in another room to form a
half bath. Mr. Slettemoen inferred that he believed the only way he
could reduce his property taxes was to vote the persons out of office
• who had been responsible for them. . The Mayor told hin to refer to .
Mr. Childs ' tabulations to see which government bodies were the most
responsible for the raise in taxes .
-4-
James Higgins , 3221 - 31st Avenue N.E. , said he had his home reap=:
praised several months ago with no reduction of a property valuation
raise from $56,000. to $82 ,000 or the resulting 156% raise in taxes •
payable in 1983. His 1983 valuation went -down $40 . Mr. Higgins said
his home is 23 years old and has its original roof and furnace and only
half a basement and he does not think the raise was equitable after
checking the valuations of the homes around him. He was advised to
file an abatement for 1982.
The Board of Review was recessed at 7 :50 P.M. for a meeting of the
St. Anthony. Housing and Redevelopment Authority .
When the Board was reconvened at 8 :20 P .M.-, Mike Fitzgerald indicated
he was present to discuss the 9 . 3% raise in the 1982 valuation and
corresponding 39% raise in taxes he had received for his property at
2904 West Armour Terrace, which the retired resident indicated had
influenced his decision to move to Florida. It was his contention
that taxes in Minnesota were driving many retirees away from the state .
The Mayor told him of the dilemma -he perceives the City is in trying
to maintain the same level of service to its residents at the same
time less and less of the taxes which St. Anthony residents pay into
the state are returned to the ' City. The City Council has made con=
tingency plans for absorbing a reasonable cut in state aid without
reducing the level of Police , Fire and Public Works service to the
community but would have few alternatives left if some of the legisla- '
tion being considered right now is passed.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked for no reappraisal of his property. •
Marie and Richard Winning, 2811 - 33rd Avenue N.E . had registered to
speak to the Board regarding their market value but had not returned
after the recess .
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
adjourn the Board of Review to be reconvened at 7 :00 P.M. , May 24 ,
1983 just prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting that even-
ing.
Motion carried unanimously .
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe , Secretary
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk •
CITY OF ST. ANTKONY
COUNCIL MINUTES
May 10 , 1983
Mayor Sundland-opened the- meeting at 8 : 40 P.M. with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Present for roll call : Marks,, Ranallo, Sundland, Letourneau and
Enrooth.
Also present : David Childs , City Manager; William Soth, City Attorney;
and Carol Johnson, Finance Director.
During the interim between the H.R.A. meeting and the last portion of
the Board of Review- '?_aine Sandell, President of the St. Anthony
Legion Auxilliary, accompanied by Doris St. Cyr, informed the Council
that her organization would be holding its annual observance of Poppy
Days in the City, May 20th. The Auxilliary head reported the types of
programs which these funds had supported the previous year and she
presented the Mayor with a poster announcing the poppy sale, '-with the
presentation photographed by the Bulletin Reporter.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo' and seconded by Councilman Marks to
approve as submitted the minutes of the Council meeting held April 26 ,
1983.'
• Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by .Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to
grant 'an amusement device license for one video game to Snyder Bros . and
a vending license to Apache Plaza for the uses documented in their
application included in the May 10 , 1983 Council agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Mayor Sundland to approve
payment of all verified claims listed for April 30 and May 10 in the
May 10 , 1983 Council agenda.
Motion carried unanimously .
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Ranal'lo to ap-
prove payment of $1 , 840 as unemployment compensation for a laid-off
staff member.
Motion carried unanimously .
Replies from Congressman Sikorski regarding water contamination and
Representative Rose to the City' s letter opposing H.F . 474 were -
distributed to the Council members . - 'Counci,lman Marks reported he had
made a personal inspection of the painting of the City water -'tower and
agreed close'' sup'ervision of the job by the Public• Works Department was
essential.
t
-2-
The Manager noted the liquor sales are. slowly coming back. The April
liquor operation sales summary and Fire Department report were then •
ordered filed as informational .
In her May 8th letters to the Public Works Director, Marquerite Jolly,
Civic Beautification Chairman for the St. , Anthony Gardenettes , had
reported the planting projects her group would be undertaking this
spring and their choice of-` "Trillium Park." for the area they have
planted and maintain at the intersection of St. Anthony Boulevard and
Highway 88 .
Motion by Councilman Enrooth . and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
authorize the name -"Trillium -Park" be added to. the existing sign in the
mini-park area near St. Anthony Boulevard and Highway 88 .
Motion carried unanimously.
Councilman. Marks indicated his recent conversation with a Group W
regarding the City' s .concerns about the types of cable service that
firm would .be providing might prove beneficial to the City and he
would like to be present when Al Kaeding gives the Council update on
that service. The City ' s representative to the North' Suburban Cable
Communications Commission' s appearance before the Council will be
delayed until June.
Mr. Childs reported meeting with representatives of the Minnesota
Pollution Control agency who had confirmed that St. Anthony would
be included with other communities who would receive funding from the
Superfund to deal with the potential contamination of their water
supplies . The MPCA would be doing a 3.0 day study of the -City ' s water
and Mr. Childs indicated no further action on the part of the City
should be necessary until that study is completed. There have been
no responses from either Minneapolis or St. Paul to his inquiries about
purchasing water for the City , he added.
The Manager informed the Council that he would be attending the Minne-
sota City Managers ' Association meetings May 11 , 12 , and 13 . He had
researched some of the references in the March Police Report and told
Councilman Marks the reference to "other misdemeanors" covered any
offense not related to moving vehicles . Mr. Childs replied to Council-
man Enrooth ' s inquiry whether the City could not have found a new Police
Secretary from the City by telling him the person hired had been selected
from 28 candidates for the job, primarily , because of her three years '
experience with the Minnetonka Police Department where her duties had
been almost the same as those she would have in St. Anthony . She
came with excellent recommendations , the Manager said, and lives in
the area. The -rest-of the May 3rd staff meeting notes were then
ordered filed as informational .
Carol Johnson had submitted with her April 26th memorandum the results
of her survey. of license fees charged by -neighboring -communities and
the changes- in fees-which she perceives would bring the- City more in
-line with other'•-municipal-i'ties- -and.. would -generate., a level of, -revenue
which.-more clos:ely.--reflects the administration costs.. Councilman. Mark
noted she had not recommended the fee for a wine license be raised
-3-
above the amount the City now charges . He said he had seen several
• fees posted in other municipalities which were $1, 500 or more.
The Mayor pointed out that there is only one such license issued in
the City at this time and costs of administering the license for that
restaurant would probably not justify a raise at this time. Her survey
indicated all five communities which were surveyed licensed general
contractors for carpenter work, and Carol indicated she could see no
. . . justification for making a distinction between that type of service
and that. provided by electricians , plumbers , and air conditioning
contractors who-are obliged to take out a permit before working in
the City. Fees charged in other cities range from $25 to $40 ,. and the
Finance Director had recommended the City charge a $30 .f.ee. The ,
Manager commented that, "this way , at least we 'd have an address and ... ,
proof of insurance for each company who comes into the City to service
our residents" .
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance for Council considera-
tion which would establish a new fee schedule as recommended by the
Finance Director for licenses to be granted in March , 1984 , including
a $30 fee and accompanying ordinance for general contracting work.
within the City.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
• adopt Resolution 83-025 .
RESOLUTION 83-025
A RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR IX USE
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
Motion carried unanimously.
In his May 5th memorandum, Mr. Hamer had recommended the low bid of
$4 , 628 for a dump body and hoist for the truck authorized by the
Council April 26th , be accepted from MacQueen Equipment , Inc. Mr .
Childs noted that under the joint purchase agreement with Hennepin
County , the City had be able to purchase a fully equipped truck for
just over $19 , 000 , which is $11 , 000 under budget.
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to
adopt Resolution 83-026 .
RESOLUTION 83-026
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID FROM
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT , INC. FOR A TRUCK DUMP
BODY AND- HOIST
Motion carried unanimously .
• In .his. memorandum. of May-.6th, the Manager had ;recommended adoption of
the resolution which would approve the contract negotiated with the
Police Department. Councilman Marks indicated two officers who had
-4-
been classified as sergeants had not been promoted to captains and he .
requested the Manager to report back why they had not even applied
for the new position.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo. and. seconded by Mayor Sundland . to adopt
Resolution 83-027.
RESOLUTION 83-027
A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE 1983 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY AND AFSCME LOCAL 57 , REPRESENTING THE
ST. ANTHONY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING - THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to
adjourn the meeting at 9 :05 P .M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe , Secretary
•
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES
May 10 ,. 1983
Chairman .Sundland called the meeting to order at 7:51 P.M.
Present for roll call : Sundland, Vice Chairman Letourneau, Secretary/
Treasurer Marks , and Commissioners Ranallo and
Enrooth.
Also present : David Childs Executive Director; William Soth, .Attorney;
Dick Krier of Westwood Planning & Engineering ,. Inc. ,
Planning Consultant; Stephen Yurick of Arkell Develop-
ment, Tentative Redevelopers of the Kenzie Terrace
Redevelopment Project; and Carol Johnson, City Finance
Director.
Motion by Commissioner Ranallo and seconded by Vice Chairman Letourneau
to approve as submitted the minutes of the H.R.A. meeting held March
22 , 1983 .
Motion carried unanimously .
Mr. Krier reported there had been a further delay in signing of the
Redevelopers Contract .so additional info.rmation. vi.tal to the successful
development of the project could be researched. Additional appraisals
of the real estate had been ordered so Kraus Anderson, the co-developer,
could be assured the purchase figures would be consistent with those
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; a new budget had
been developed; and his firm had developed a new cash flow analysis
which addressed "the worst case possibilities which could happen before
the project is completed" , Mr. Krier said. He had concluded that
this analysis supported his belief that even with delays in the Phase
2 and 3 schedules and only a partial completion of Phase 3, the project
could be considered a highly feasible undertaking, with only a limited
risk for the City .
The latest version of the Redevelopers Contract had been provided the
H .R.A. members for review prior to the meeting. Referring to the
section addressing condemnation, the Secretary/Treasurer cited a
recent court ruling which had raised some questions in his mind about
the extent of risk for the City once condemnation proceedings are
initiated.
Mr. Soth told him it should be recognized that at some time the City
would be forced to buy the property with some risk involved, with the
greatest risk possible during the acquisition of land for Phases 2
and 3. However, he said he would anticipate the City would proceed .
with condemnation proceedings only -after they had reached a "level of
• comfort" with such -a step. According to the Attorney , the developer
had authorized the _City to proceed with the acquisition of land for
-2-
Phase 1, but Mr. Soth said he would anticipate very little risk to
be involved, "unless you have missed the cost of the land by a great •
deal" . Intense efforts have been taken to negotiate the sale of the
property without condemnation, which could take 120 days , Mr. Soth
reported, but he added that he would recommend against- actual acquisi-
tion without the contract being signed first.
Mr. Yurick indicated- the redevelopers have no major problems with the
contract and anticipatessigning it and submitting the Letter of Credit
before the next H:R.A. meeting. He said he was very optimistic about
the project since his company has received. over 200 inquiries about
just the 134 units which would be constructed first and he still
believes that -project can be started this fall .
Since he would be' unable to attend the next Council meeting, May 24th,
the Secretary/Treasurer wondered if the H.R.A. meeting could be,
scheduled in advance of that date. When this did not appear to be
possible , he made the motion, which Commissioner Enrooth seconded,
to schedule a Housing and Redevelopmeny Authority meeting for May 24 ,
1983 and to direct that it be put into the record that .a special H.R.A.
meeting scheduled for May 3rd had been held instead on May 10th .
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Secretary/Treasurer Marks and seconded by Vice Chairman-
Letourneau to approve payment of $3,073 . 46 to Westwood Planning &
Engineering, Inc. , representing the H.R.A. share of the costs of the
Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Study .
Motion carried unanimously .
Motion by Commissioner Ranallo and seconded by Secretary/Treasurer
Marks to adjourn the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting
at 8 : 15 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe , Secretary
^J
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
COUNCIL MINUTES
May 24, 1983
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7: 30 P.M.
by Mayor Sundland.
Present for roll call : Ranallo, Sundland, Letourneau and Enrooth.
Absent: Marks .
Also present : David Childs , City Manager; 'William Soth; .City Attorney;
Carol Johnson, Finance Director; and Larry Hamer, Public
Works Director.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to
approve as submitted the minutes of the Board of Review and Council
meeting held May 10 , 1983.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Childs informed the Council members that Apache Plaza had made a
$650 deposit for 25 amusement devices whenever they become available.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
grant cigarette licenses for two machines at the Country Club Market
and one machine at Mr. Hobo.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Sundland distributed copies of a memo suggesting possible ideas
for a policy regarding the serving of beer in the City parks which
would be considered and discussed at a later meeting.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Letourneau
to grant a temporary 3. 2 beer license to Pat Fagerlee , 3407 Croft
Drive, to serve , but not sell, beer at the Robertson family picnic
to be held in the Central Park Pavillion, June 4 , 1983.
Motion carried unan imously.
Motion by Councilman Letourneau and seconded by Councilman Enrooth
to approve the payment of $4 ,486 . 73 to Dorsey & Whitney for legal
services during March, 1983.
Motion carried unanimously .
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to.
approve payment of $1,934 to Bergerson-Caswell ,. Inc. for the repair
and reinstallation of Well #3.
Motion carried unanimously.
• George Wagner was present. .to report the minutes of the Planning Commis-
sion meeting held May 17, 1983.
The Mayor indicated he concurred- with the Commission recommendation
of denial. of the request for additional signage for the B. J. Antique
-2-
Shop in the St. Anthony Village Shopping .Center because he perceives
that to grant more signage for this particular business , than is
permitted by ordinance for the other stores in the center, would result •
in a hardship for those other merchants who would not have similar
identification.
Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to
deny the request from Russell Underhill for a variance to the City
Sign Ordinance which would permit the proprietor of-the B. J. Antique
Shop at 2530 Harding Street N.E. to attach the identification sign he
had .proposed to the existing non-conforming sign at the Kenzie Terrace
entrance to the St. Anthony Village Shopping Center, finding, as did
the Planning Commission that:
(1) The new Sign Ordinance permits the identification of each tenant
in the shopping center with signage on the building itself and
prohibits a .general listing of tenants on the signage for the
center, which might well be the precedent set for other businesses ,
if this request were granted.
(2) None of the conditions set for granting variances to the Sign
Ordinance appear to have been addressed in the application,
specifically, that (a) there would appear to be no particular
hardship for this business than would be experienced by other
commercial businesses in the same center if the strict letter of
the regulations are adhered to, and (b) the condition upon which
the application was based could not be considered to be unique
to this parcel and not applicable , generally , to other stores in
the same center.
(3) The failure of the applicant to be present for the two considera-
tions of his request precluded any other recommendation, based
on the information which had been submitted.
(4) The manner in which the sign to which the requested signage
would be attached has been maintained would seem to justify not
adding to it.
Motion carried unanimously.
There was also Council concurrence with the Planning Commission findings
for not requiring an additional variance for the change in sign copy
which would be necessitated by the transfer of the Burger Chef to a
Hardees franchise, especially , since the square footage for the new
sign would be decreased.
The remainder of the report was accepted as informational .
Minutes for the May 16th meeting of the Seven County Metro Joint Pur-
chasing Consortium at. Columbia Heights had been included in the Council
agenda by Fire Chief Entner so the Council could see the progress
which was being made in this cost-saving program. Councilman Ranallo
said he recognized. the '�hard work Chief Entner had put into this venture
and had been very disappointed to find the League of Minnesota Cities •
seemed to be lukewarm to the concept.
i
-3-
Mr. Childs indicated the City had contacted the Clark Oil Company to
find out what their plans are for cleaning up the appearance of their
• property at the intersection of Stinson Boulevard and 33rd Avenue N.E.
The possibility of a multi-family, commercial use for that property
was explored. Mr. -Hamer told Councilman Letourneau he would check
to see the grounds around the Midland Office Building in the Industrial
Park are kept mowed.- He also said the City crew mows the median in
that same area.
Mayor Sundland noted that when .the State Hearing Examiner had submitted
her suitability report and recommended the proposed hazardous waste .
processing facility area in Roseville be considered for inclusion in
the inventory of preferred areas for the location of a chemical
processing, storage and transfer facility , she had at the same time
acknowledged the five objections the City of St. Anthony had made to
having such a plant sited adjacent to its boundaries , which the
Examiner indicated should be points the Metropolitan [caste Management
Board should consider before including the Roseville site in the final
inventory of preferred area. The Mayor indicated he was also gratified
to note the Examiner had indicated that a more substantial testing of,
the soil and aquifer suitability should take place during the permit-
ting process since she had been unable to make a finding as to whether
soil conditions on that particular site .would offer any protection to
the aquifer.
In his May 20th memorandum, Mr. Childs had proposed applications be
submitted for CDBG funding under the Federal Jobs Bill for two City
• projects which he believes would give a "real shot in the arm" to
the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project. Fie suggested making
application for $350 ,000 to cover land acquisition costs for the
senior rental. project to be developed under Section 202/8 funding
proposed for Phase 2 and Mr. Childs believed from $250 ,000 to $300 ,000
should be sought jointly with Hennepin County for land acquisition
costs for the construction of a new St. Anthony branch library in the
same redevelopment area. Although he was in complete agreement with
Council members that the 202 project should be given first priority ,
the Manager reminded the Council that the projects would be rated
separately according to the County ' s needs . He was directed to make
application for both projects .
Mr. Hamer showed films of as much as could be televised of the City ' s
430 feet of sanitary sewer located in the area of 36th Avenue N.E.
and Edward, indicating that in certain areas the clay tile had
deteriorated to the point where the passage of the camera could have
caused the complete collapse of the whole system in that area.
The Public Works Director indicated the Engineers had estimated it
would cost the City $80 , 000 to tear up the concrete street and replace
the clay tile with iron pipe , but Mr. Childs had suggested another
method of dealing with the problem which would cost the City approxi-
mately $15 , 000 . The Manager explained that under this new system, an
inflatable resin lining is applied to the inside of the deteriorating
sewer lines without tearing up . the streets at all. He said Maplewood
had successfully preserved a portion- of their sewer system in this
• manner and Minneapolis plans - a : similar project this summer, which would
make' the equipment available - to the City during this construction
season and before the lines deteriorate to- the point where they would
collapse completely and make a costly replacement project necessary .
-4-
It was agreed that Mr. Hamer should contact Maplewood to see if they
would be willing to have the City televise the repaired .lines to see
whether the new system would be a good one for St. Anthony . Mr. Soth •
indicated the job would not have to be bid since the procedure is a
patented franchise.
Because the Sewer Fund already has a $40 ,000 deficit and the City has
no control over 77% of the rates which are collected which go to the
Metropolitan Waste Commission, Mr. Childs indicated he foresees a.
raise *in rates would be inevitable even without a $15 ,000 project
this - summer.-
The .-alternate measures which could be taken by northern suburbs if
their water supplies have to be taken off line because of contamina-
tion were discussed at the latest MPCA hearing attended by the City
Manager. Mr. Childs reported he had learned there is another vendor
of carbon filtration systems who could provide that service for about
half the cost of the original quotes . Mr. Hamer indicated Minneapolis
officials had demonstrated some reluctance to supplying water to the
affected communities on a part time basis . No further action by the
Council was deemed necessary until after the EPA funded study of the
City ' s system is completed. Councilman Ranallo said he is anxious
to see what would happen to the City' s water supply after the New
Brighton wells are taken off the same aquifer they share with
St. Anthony.
Preliminary estimates show the City stands to lose $45 ,000 in state aid,
or 20% of its budget, with the legislation which was recently passed, •
and Mr. Childs anticipates the same amount may be cut in 1985 as well .
Included in the agenda packet was a copy of the motion proposed by
District #282 whereby the School District and the City would make a
joint application for $30 , 861 in state funds to establish and imple-
ment the St. Anthony Youth Intervention Program under which the City
schools would participate with Mounds View and Roseville in an on-going
preventive program targeted towards youths who appear to be leaning
towards serious problems . Tom McMullen , Community Services Director,
was present to answer questions about the joint venture and Mr. Childs
reported Chief Hickerson perceives the program could be cost saving
for the City since, once a child becomes a juvenile delinquent ,
prosecution costs , etc. , are very high. Councilman Ranallo indicated
he could see nothing wrong with the proposal since the City could make
an assessment of just how beneficial the program would be before a.
monetary investment had to be made .
Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
adopt the proposed resolution which would establish a joint St. Anthony
Youth Intervention Program with District #282 .
RESOLUTION 83-029
..A -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ST. ANTHONY
. .YOUTII INTERVENTION PROGRAM
Motion carried unanimously. •
-5-
In her May 20th memorandum, Carol Johnson had suggested the City
could save money by having only one polling place for the upcoming
City elections in November. Councilman Ranallo - said he would always
be in favor of any action which cut costs and appreciated the Finance
Director' s constant efforts in this direction, but was concerned
that, since all four polls are required to be- used for the 1984
Primary and General Elections , it would- be almost impossible to
educate the citizenry about where they are to vote each time. The
Mayor indicated he agreed with this conclusion, .having observed his
neighbors ' confusion about the recent school elections. The general
consensus of the Council was not to change the polling practices for
the City since to do so might cause great - confusion for the residents ,
some of whom might not vote at all, just because they weren' t sure,
where their polling place was .
As he had reported in his May 20th memorandum, Mr. Childs said he
had taken the bids for the issuance of the Certificates of Indebted-
ness necessary to keep the City ' s capital equipment up to date from
two banks , First. Security of St. Paul and the St. Anthony National
Bank, and had selected the latter because they had offered the lowest
interest rate, 62% (or $730) as compared to the 8% , (or $900) from
First Security.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded .by Councilman Enrooth to
adopt the resolution which authorizes Certificates of Indebtedness
be issued to the St. Anthony National Bank at 62% as recommended
• by the City Manager. .
RESOLUTION 83-028
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL
EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Letourneau and seconded by Councilman Enrooth
to adjourn the meeting at 9 :02 P .M.
Motion carried unanimously .
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe, Secretary
Mayor
ATTEST:
• City Clerk
e:
CITY OF ST. ANTHOITY
BOARD OF REVIEW
May 24 , 1983
The Board .of Review was reconvened by Mayor Sundland at 7 :00 P.M.
Present for roll call: Ranallo, Sundland, Letourneau and Enrooth.
Absent : Marks.
Also present : David Childs , City Manager; Richard Becken, Hennepin
County Assessors Office; Carol Johnson, Finance
Director; and Larry Hamer, Public Works Director.
. Mr. Becken reported the onsite appraisal of the property at 2521
27th Avenue N.E. , which had been requested by its owner, Roy Perzel,
had resulted in a $1,.000 reduction of the market valuation for that
property.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Letourneau
to accept the recommendation of the Hennepin County Assessors Office
that the market valuation for the property at 2521 27th Avenue N.E.
be reduced from $68, 600 to $67, 600 .
Motion carried unanimously.
The reappraisal of the property at 3101 Armour Terrace. had resulted
in: `t-he'1fiarket valuation being-raised $300 , according.,_ to Mr:- Becken ,
but the Mayor told the owner, Robert Dougherty, his ruling that there
would be no change in valuation of less than $500 at the May 10th
Review would apply.
Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
leave the market valuation for the property at 3101 Armour Terrace
at $93 , 200 .
Motion carried unanimously .
The market valuation for the property at 3209 31st Avenue N.E. had
been reduced by $3,800 following the onsite appraisal requested by
its owner, Jack Weinstock , Mr. Becken reported.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Letourneau
to accept Hennepin County ' s reappraisal of the property at 3209
31st Avenue N.E. and to reduce the market valuation for that property
from $98, 300 to $94 , 500 .
Motion carried unanimously .
When nei-ther Mr. Perzel or Mr. Weinstock had arrived by 7 :25 P.M. , to
learn the outcome of their_...reappraisals , the following action was taken.
-2-
Motion by Councilman Ranall'o and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to •
adjourn the 1983 Board of Review.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe , Secretary
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk -
• CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES
May 24 , 1983
Chairman Sundland called -the meeting to order at 9 :13 P.M.
Present for roll call: Sundland, Vice Chairman Letourneau, and
Commissioners Ranallo and Enrooth.
Absent: Marks.
Also present : David Childs , .-Executive Director; William Soth, Attorney;
Dick Krier- of Westwood Planning & Engineering, Inc. ,
Planning Consultant; and Stephen Yurick. of Arkand Part-
nership, tentative Redevelopers of the Kenzie- Terrace
Redevelopment Project.
'Motion by Vice Chairman.Letourneau and seconded by Commissioner Enrooth
to .approve as submitted. the. minutes .of- the H.R.A. meeting held. May 10 ,
1983.
Motion carried unanimously.
Copies of the Redevelopment Agreement to• be signed by the Chairman and
Secretary/Treasurer.. had been distributed .by Mr-. Krier who had outlined
the provisions of that agreement in the letter which had been included
in the---agend•a-,p•ack-et , "The --P•lanningT:Consultant noted that- the. contract--
had been signed by the parent company. of Kraus-Anderson, Inc. , which
he perceived would be more beneficial- to the- City than. j ust'h-aving the
real estate subsidiary a partner. Mr. Soth indicated he had in his
possession the - $100 ,0.00 Letter of Credit covering. the first phase of
the project, but intends- to see if he can persuade the bank to drop
the two paragraphs they added to the document -because it would be
. better for the City if these .additions could. be_ removed .
Mr. Krier reminded. the.. H. R.A. members that. the redeveloper would have
to submit another..Letter of. Credit for. $300 , 000 before- any . land is
acquired for Phase 2 which would minimize the .City ' s risk if the property
is acquired and .not developed by Arkand. The Planning- Consultant said
his firm would be negotiating with Mr. S.aliterman- to see - if the land
in Phases 2 and 3 could-'be purchased -as needed, but doubted the owner
would go along with that proposition.
Mr. Yurick told the Chairman- his firm would be promoting. Phase 2 sales
as soon as construction -is started on the 134 units in Phase 1 and both
phases could be constructed concurrently if there is a market demand
for it.
Motion by Commissioner Ranallo and seconded by Vice Chairman Letourneau
- to--adopt,--the r-esolu.t,ion--which-.au:thor-izes the execu,tion,.o,f.._the. Re.develop-
ment. Agreement with the Arkand.--.Partnership.
• H.R.A. RESOLUTION 83-003
AliTNnRIZING THE REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
Motion carried unanimously.
-2-
Motion by Commissioner Enrooth. and seconded by Chairman Sundland to •
adopt the resolution which authorizes the H.R.A. Executive Director
to proceed with the acqusition for Phase 1.
H.R.A. RESOLUTION .83--004
- AUTHORIZ'ATION .TO BEGIN ACQUISITION PHASE I
Motion carried unanimously.
The Manager asked whether the H:R.A. wanted to -proceed with the- next
phase :of their .contract with Mr. Krier; Commissioner Ranallo said -he,
perceives the Planning Consultant had done an excellent job in putting
the project together.
Motion by Commissioner Ranallo and seconded by Chairman Sundland to
proceed with Phase 3 of the H.R.A. contract with Westwood Planning
& Engineering, Inc. to retain . Richard Krier, President, as Planning
Consultant for the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment Authority .
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner' Ranallo and seconded by Commissioner Enrooth
to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 30 P .M. ,
Motion carried unanimously.,
•
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe , Secretary
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk