Finance staff: Park funds limited; commission told how to submit projects for 2026 CIP

Dan (city staff) told the North St. Paul Parks & Recreation Commission that the city’s park capital accounts hold modest cash balances and that state law limits how those dollars may be used.

The explanation came during a May meeting focused on the parks budget and the 2026–2034 capital improvement plan. Dan said the Park Dedication Fund held “a little over $456,000 in cash” as of March 31 and the Park Fund showed about $763,000 in cash, with roughly $29,000 in revenue recognized through March. He added that the Parks Fund had recorded a single expenditure of about $4,600 for a final payment to HGA for a study.

The Park Dedication Fund is constrained by Minnesota law to acquisition, development or improvement of parks, recreation facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space and “cash payments will not be used for ongoing operation or maintenance,” Dan said. That restriction means routine park operations remain in the general fund; the dedication fund is not available for salaries or day‑to‑day maintenance.

City staff walked commissioners through the CIP submission process for projects to be considered in the 2026–2034 plan. Staff asked commissioners to fill out the standard CIP template, attach supporting materials and designate a project sponsor; staff will meet with sponsors to check feasibility and identify potential funding sources before forwarding recommendations to city council. Meeting participants discussed timing for entries: staff referenced mid‑May deadlines during the meeting and said submissions should be provided in that mid‑May window so the city can assemble the packet for council review.

Dan cautioned the commission that the city’s ability to finance large projects is constrained by existing debt and bonding plans. He noted the city recently received a ratings upgrade from S&P but said the city still carries sizable debt compared with nearby communities. “We’re carrying too much debt,” he said, describing why the city has prioritized moving to a stronger cash position rather than increasing long‑term borrowing. For that reason, he urged commissioners to break large projects into smaller phases and to be realistic about costs: “you’re not gonna be able to afford a $6,000,000 project,” he told the group when discussing McKnight Fields.

Commissioners asked staff how specific elements such as parking lots should be budgeted; staff said parking work often flows through the street maintenance or facilities funds rather than the park dedication fund, and that public works would review which fund is appropriate for any particular parking work. Commissioners and staff also discussed accessibility requirements. One commissioner noted that replacing playground surfacing would likely require bringing equipment into ADA compliance and that accessible surfacing (rather than mulch) can significantly increase costs.

Staff said they would accept CIP template submissions from the commission, work with public works to review feasibility and funding, and present recommended projects and financing to city council for final approval. Commissioners were asked to provide their draft project entries in the mid‑May submission window so staff could incorporate them into the financial model.