Skip to main content
Saint Paul logo
File #: RES 25-850    Version: 1
Type: Resolution Status: Mayor's Office
In control: City Council
Final action: 5/28/2025
Title: Accepting the Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Process Assessment Report Conducted by Wilder Research.
Sponsors: Rebecca Noecker, Matt Privratsky, HwaJeong Kim
Attachments: 1. Attachment A - Saint Paul Community Project CIB Process Report 04-22-2025.pdf, 2. Attachment B - Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Process Assessment Report 05-12-2025.pdf, 3. St Paul City Council Presentation_Community Project CIB Process Report_04222025 vFinal
Title
Accepting the Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Process Assessment Report Conducted by Wilder Research.

Body
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council Audit Committee, with support from the City Council, engaged Wilder Research to conduct a study aligned with the Committee’s mission “to evaluate the financial and program performance of City departments to build public trust and ensure outstanding service delivery and transparency”; and

WHEREAS, RES 23-1905 authorized the first of two studies conducted by Wilder Research, which focused on identifying efficiencies and opportunities for collaboration, cost sharing, and process improvements within Saint Paul Parks and Recreation and the Saint Paul Public Library; and

WHEREAS, in 2024, the Audit Committee initiated a second study to assess the City’s Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) process; and

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, Wilder Research presented preliminary findings and recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the community-based CIB process, with a focus on the CIB process, community engagement, and equity in both the process and funding distribution; and

WHEREAS, the Audit Committee accepted the report and, at its April 22, 2025 meeting, voted to refer the findings to the full City Council, including a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment A) and the final report (Attachment B); and

WHEREAS, the report identified key findings across three primary focus areas:

CIB Process
· The shift to separate community and department proposals was meant to increase fairness but has added complexity.
· Applicants experience the process as opaque; they often don’t know who to contact or what happens after submitting.
· Staff cited the need for better alignment between internal funding timelines and public-facing communication.

Community Engagement
· Most participants, including staff, could not identify who is accountable for engagement.
· CIB committee members and district councils are unde...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
No records to display.