HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.F.2. Proposed 2006 AMM Policy Positions
.
10~ F. ~,
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Kris Wilson, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Proposed 2006 AMM Policy Positions
DATE: November 9,2005
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will host its annual policy adoption
meeting on Thursday, November 1 ih. City Administrator Mark McNeill, who is a
member of the AMM Board, will be attending that meeting, at which AMM's proposed
policy positions for 2006 will be voted on by member cities.
A copy ofthe proposed 2006 policies is attached for your review, as well as an outline of
which policies have been changed or added compared to 2005.
The proposed policies were developed by committees composed of elected and appointed
officials from AMM member cities. Councilmember Steve Menden was a member ofthe
committee that developed the Metropolitan Agencies policies and City Administrator
Mark McNeill was a member of the committee that developed the Transportation and
General Government policies.
Staff is aware that the subj ect of eminent domain is going to be a topic of discussion
during the 2006 legislative session, and that it has been the source of concern locally.
TheAMM draft position is found in Article III-K, on Page 12
League of Minnesota Cities Policies
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) follows a slightly different process in adopting
their legislative policy positions. Like AMM, the League has policy committees
composed of elected and appointed officials from member cities that review the issues
and recommend policy positions. However, the League's policies are formally adopted
by the League's Board of Directors, rather than the full membership. There is an
opportunity for League members to comment on the proposed policies through December
16th. The 146 page policy document is available online at www.lnmc.org. Comments
may be submitted by phone, email or letter up until the 16th. City officials attending the
League's annual conference Dec 1 though 3. in Rochester will also have an opportunity to
comment on the proposed policies.
The Council may choose to review and comment on the League's policies individually,
or, if you prefer, staff could bring the League's policies forward as an agenda item at the
December 6th meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council endorse the proposed 2006
AMM Policies and authorize City Administrator Mark McNeill to vote in favor of their
adoption, on behalf of the City of Shakopee, at the November 1 ih AMM Policy
Adoption meeting. If there are concerns on individual policies, those should be pulled
for separate consideration.
Alternatives:
If the Council does not wish to support the entire set of policies, a motion could be made
to endorse particular chapters of the proposed policies. The five chapters are (1)
Municipal Revenue & Taxation, (2) General Legislation, (3) Housing & Economic
Development, (4) Metropolitan Agencies, and (5) Transportation.
A second alternative would be for the Council to endorse the policies with the exception
of a particular policy or policies or to take no action at all.
Action Requested:
If it so desires, the Council is asked to take action on the 2006 proposed AMM policies
and provide staff with direction regarding the 2006 proposed LMC policies.
f! ~ w4L;L '"
Kris Wilson (t t-
Assistant to the City Administrator
~ Sc:.t M.MA~q D~ Cet It N (\-( ~
,
Municipal Revenue and Taxation
I-A Levy Limits
No changes were made to this policy.
I-B Local Government Aid (LGA)
Changes were made to this policy to recognize the volatility of the LGA formula, to support
full funding of the LGA formula as well as include inflationary factors, and support for a
state-conducted analysis to study the impact of including rapidly growing cities on the
formula.
I-C Market Value Homestead (MVHC)
Changes made to this policy reflect committee support for more transparency in the MVHC
program. The current structure allows the state to preserve the credit to the homeowner while
not reimbursing local units of government. The new policy supports having the credit be
structured as a direct reimbursement from the state to the taxpayer.
I-D Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
No changes were made to this policy.
I-E Limited Market Value (LMV)
No changes were made to this policy.
I-F Transit Funding
This policy was removed from the Municipal Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
policies to Transportation and General Government. The committee thought that the
Transportation area was a better fit for this policy. As a result, the following policies were
re-numbered to reflect this change.
I-F Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits
No changes were made to this policy.
I-G State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property
No changes were made to this policy.
I-H Class Rate Tax System
No changes were made to this policy.
~
...
I-I Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
The Department of Revenue is currently studying utility property rules and regulations.
Changes made to this policy reflect the committee's opposition to any rule changes that
would cause a decline in the taxable market value of utility property, and. support for keeping
host cities financially whole to compensate for the costs of hosting utility properties.
I-J Revenue Diversification
No changes were madeto this policy.
I-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
No changes were made to this policy.
I-L City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance
No changes were made to this policy,
I-M Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
The 2005 Legislature appropriated over $29 million for PERA, making our previous policy
obsolete. The new PERA policy is consistent with the League's policy and supports cities
and employees sharing equally in contribution increases, and allows for monitoring of
legislative proposals as necessary and appropriate.
I-N Aggregate Mining Fee
No changes were made to this policy.
1-0 State Program Revenue Sources (NEW POLICY)
During the 2005 session, the Legislature considered a proposal to finance the Clean Water
Legacy Act through a $36 annual local user fee to be charged to all residential connections in
those cities connected to municipal wastewater systems. This new AMM policy supports the
objectives of the Clean Water Legacy Act but objects to financing this state initiative through
local user fees and the property tax
,-
v
General Le2islation
II-A Mandates & Local Authority
No changes made to this policy.
II-B City Enterprise Activities
No changes made to this policy.
II-C Firearms on City Property
No changes madeto this policy.
II-D Compensation Limits
This policy was deleted as AMM's concerns have been addressed.
II-D 911 Telephone Tax
Deleted language referring to the increase in the current charge per phone line as the charge
was increased during the 2005 legislative session. Language was added to address the need
for support technology that can provide numbers and locations of wireless phones.
II-E 800 MHz Radio System
This policy was edited to better reflect the AMM's position regarding participation in the
system as well as the need for additional funding from the legislature to maintain the system.
II-G State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance
Deleted. AMM's concerns were addressed by the 2005. legislature. The Omnibus Public
Safety bill includes language to create a panel with representatives from cities, fire and police
departments, counties and an at large member to be voted on by the previously named
members to define eligibility requirements for the insurance. At this time we are waiting on
the results from the panel.
II-F Impaired Waters (New Policy)
This is a new policy that addresses the need for funding as well as policy language relating to
the Clean Water Legacy Act. AMM does not support the current funding mechanism; it is
participating in the G 16 and moving towards a resolution onthe funding issue.
II-G Building Codes (New Policy)
This is a new policy addressing the rededication of the building permit surcharge to. be used
for educational purposes to help equip cities in dealing with building permits, inspections and
inspector issues.
^
if
Housin!!: & Economic Development
Introduction
No changes made to the introduction statement.
III-A City Role in Housing
Clerical changes were made to this policy
III-B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
Clerical changes were made to this policy
I1I-C Livable Communities
An additional fourth paragraph was added to address the lack of funding in the Livable
Communities demonstration account.
III -D Inclusionary Housing
No changes made to this policy
III-E State Role in Affordable Housing
Significantchanges were made to this policy. The opening paragraphs were edited to create
a more concise statement; the menu of funding mechanisms has also changed, mainly dueto
recent legislative activity.
III-F Federal Role In Affordable Housing
Significant changes were made to this policy. Anew introductory paragraph was created as
well as three additional bullet points. The changes were mainly due to updates in legislative
initiatives.
III-G City Role in Economic Development (Previously Economic Development
Responsibilities)
Changes were made to this policy with the intent of encompassing both development and
redevelopment initiatives in this general policy statement.
III-H Eminent Domain: Moved to Policy III-K
'.
\.,
III-H Development (New Policy)
This is a new policy created to separately address the issue of development from
redevelopment. The committee felt it important to distinguish and support these specific
programs.
III-I Tax Increment Financing
Moved to Policy III-J.
111-1 Redevelopment (Previously State Role in RedevelopmentJReinvestment III-J)
The edit was mainly clerical, rearranging the old language to more closely mirror current
format.
III-J Tax Increment Financing
Significant changes were made to this policy. The opening paragraph was edited to reflect
previous legislative action. Theremaining bullet points were in response to specific
committee concerns over restrictive TIF legislation.
III-K Eminent Domain
Significant changes were made to this policy. The changes were in reaction to the Kelo
decision handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court.
III-L This Old House/This Old Shop
Clerical changes were made to this policy
III-M Business Subsidy Policy (New Policy)
This is a new policy intended to address concerns about a complete overhaul of the business
subsidy policy.
,
I
Metropolitan A2encies
IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
No changes were made to this policy.
IV-B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
Minor change to this policy includes a statement outlining the role of the Met Council and its
responsibilities to cities (taken from Policy IV-H and moved under this section).
IV -C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
No changes were made to this policy.
IV-D Funding Regional Services
Changes were made to this policy to emphasize support for having fees be set through an
open process, and support for user fees for regional projects so long as these fees are not used
to coerce particular behavior from cities.
IV-E Regional Systems
Minor grammatical and technical changes were made to this policy.
IV-F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
Language was added to this policy to reflect the AMM's opposition to any sanctions or
penalties for cities when local comprehensive plans are deemed incompatible with Met
Council systems plans.
IV-G Local Zoning Authority
No changes were made to this policy.
IV -H Regional Growth
No changes were made to this policy except that the last paragraph was deleted and moved
under policy IV-B.
IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule
No changes were made to this policy.
IV-J Natural Resource Protection
No changes were made to this policy.
\-
IV-K Federal Clean Water Mandates
IV-L Inflow and Infiltration
IV -M Water Supply
The committee favored having three policies to address issues relating to water supply and
management. Our previous Policy IV -KWater Management was deleted.
The new IV -K (Federal Clean Water Mandates) supports having the Met Council partner
with state and federal agencies to solve issues associated with the Clean Water Act.
New policy IV-L (Inflow and Infiltration) responds to plans by the Met Council to establish
an III surcharge on cities thathave excessive III. The policy opposes any surcharge until
specific criteria for its establishment are met.
Policy IV-M responds to legislative authority granted to the Met Council to carry out
activities to address water supply needs for the. metro area. This policy reflects the
committee's opposition to having the Met Council become another regulator in the water
supply system, as well as opposition to having 'water supply' be elevated to 'regional
system' status.
IV -N. Funding Regional Parks and Open Space
No changes were made to this policy.
~
..r
Transportation and TransitPolicv Lan2Uaf!e
V-A Transportation and Transit Funding
Edited to reflect that the AMM supports working with other organizations to promote amenu
of sources that would result in increased funding to supporttransportation.and transit.
Support for the MVST constitutional amendment was reemphasized.
V-B Metropolitan Transportation. Referendum
Deleted. The committee determined that sales tax is not a transparent revenue source for
funding transportation and transit needs.
V-B Regional Transit System
No changes made to this policy.
V-C Transit Operating Subsidies
No changes made to this policy.
V-D Road Access Fee
No changes made to this policy.
V-E Transportation. Utility
Changes were made to better align our policy language with that of the LMC.
V-F Highway Turnbacks & Funding
This policy was edited to include an AMM position on the need for additional funding to .
address the excessive maintenance on city streets where those streets are serving a regional or
state constituency.
V-G "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role
Grammatically edited to clarify the intent of the policy.
V-H Red Light Cameras
Edited to better align our language with that ofthe LMC.
V-I Airport Noise Mitigation
Two clerical changes were made.
"
.
V-J Cities under 5,000 population
Edited to reflect language included in the 2005 bonding bill that allocated funds to cities with
populations under 5,000 that was intended to be used primarily for transportation needs.
V-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
No changes made to this policy.
V-L Municipal input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Language was updated. References deleted regarding the rewrite of the statute in 200 l. and
proposed elimination of consent in 2004 by the AssoCiation of Minnesota Counties.
V-M Plat Authority
No changes made to this policy.
V-N City Speed Limit Control
No changes made to this policy.
V-O Municipal State Aid (New Policy)
New policy meant to allow increased flexibility for funding street operations and
maintenance.
0
f
,
January 2006
f~
Q#
Legislative.
p 0 L I C I E S
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Ave. W.+ St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000+ Fax: (651) 281-1299
E-mail: amm@amm 145.org
..
Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue & Taxation (I)
I-A Levy Limits ................ ...... ........ .......................... ....... .................... ............. ....... 1
1-8 Local Government Aid (LGA) ........ ..................................... ............... ................ 1
I-C Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) ......................................................... 1
I-D Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution ..................................................................... 2
I-E Limited Market Value (LMV) ............................................................................. 2
I-F Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits ............... ........ .................. ......... ....... 2
I-G State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property................................... 2
I-H Class Rate Tax System ... .... .................,.. .......... ............ .................... ................ 2
1-1 Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility ........................................................ 3
I-J Revenue Diversification............... ........................ ........... ................ .................. 3
I-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases ...................................................... 3
I-L City Revenue Stability & Fund Balance ............................................................. 3
I-M Public Employees' RetirementAssociation (PERA) .....................~.................... 4
I-N Aggregate Mining Fee................ ......................... ........... ................ .................. 4
1-0 State Program Revenue Sources ............ .............. ~................ ........................... 4
General Legislation (II)
II-A Mandates & Local Authority........ .................. .................. ........ .......................... 5
II-B City Enterprise Activities......... .............. .......': :.......... .................. .................. ..... 5
II-C Firearms on City Property..... .............. ......... ..................................... ................ 5
II-D 911 Telephone Tax.. ............ ...................... ..... ............................................ ....... 5
II-E 800 MHz Radio System.............. ..........:.............. ........... ..................... ~....... ..... 5
II-F Impaired Waters .... ..................... ........ ........................ ............ .......................... 6
II-G Building Codes. .......... .............. .............. ............................................. ............. 6
Housing & Economic Development (III) .
III-A City Role in Housing .......................... ................ ............... ..... ........................... 7
III-B City Role in Affordable and Lifecycle Housing ................................................... 7
III-C Livable Communities .......... ........................... .............. ...... ................. .............. 8
IIl-D I nclusionary Housing ......................................................................................... 8
III-E State Role in Affordable Housing ... ........................................ ...... ..................... 9
III-F Federal Role in Affordable Housing .................................................................. 9
III-G Cities Role in Economic Development ....................................................... ..... 10
III-H Development................... ...... .......................................... ............................... 10
111-1 Redevelopment ............................................................................................... 11
III-J Tax Increment Financing ............................. ............ .......................... ............... 11
III-K Eminent Domain.... ....................................... .................................... .............. 12
2006 Legislative Policies i
~
Contents
III-L "This Old House" I "This Old Shop" .................................................................. 12
III-M Business Subsidy Policy............................ ..................... .............. ............. ..... 12
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance.............................................................. 13
IV-B Roles & Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council....................................... 13
IV-C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members.................. ............................ ...... 14
IV-D Funding Regional Services............ ...................... ...... ..... ................................ 14
IV-E Regional Systems....... .......... ............. ......... ............ .......................... .............. 14
IV-F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans ........................................................... 15
IV-G Local Zoning Authority............................. ........................ ......... ...................... 15
IV-H Regional Growth ........................... ........................ ........... ............................... 16
IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule ................................................................ 16
IV-J Natural Resource Protecton ..........................;................................................. 17
IV-K Federal Clean Water Mandates...................................................... ................ 17
IV-L Inflow and Infiltration (III) ................................................................................... 18
IV-M Water Supply....... .................... ................. ............... .......... ........ ~......... ...... .-.... 18
IV-N Funding Regional Parks & Open Space.......................................................... 19
Transportation (V)
V-A Transportation and Transit Funding.............. ............ .................................. .....21
V-B Regional Transit System ...... ......................... ................. ..................... ............ 21
V-C Transit Operating Subsidies ........................................................................... 22
V-D Road Access Fee... ...................... ................. ........... ....... .................... ........... 22
V-E Transportation Utility............. .............. ........... .......... .......... ........... ............. ..... 22
V-F Highway Turnbacks & Funding............ .......... ................................ .................. 22
V-G '3C'Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role .......................... 23
V-H Red Light Cameras ... ............ ............. ........................... ...... ........................... 23
V-I Airport Noise Mitigation... ..... ........ ..................... ........ .............. ............ ........... 23
V-J Cities Under 5,000 Population ........................... ................................. ............ 24
V-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula ................................. 24
V-L Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads .................... 24
V-M Plat Authority ............................................................. ..................................... 25
V-N City Speed Limit Control................................................................................. 25
V-O Municipal State Aid .................................. ................. ................ ............ .......... 25
Committee Rosters
Municipal Revenue Policy Committee...................... ..... ............................................. 27
Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee .................................,......... 28
Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee.. .................................. ................. ............. 28
Transportation and General Government Policy Committee ....................................... 29
ii Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
v
AMM MISSION STATEMENT
To serve as the primary representative of the collective
interests of all metropolitan cities on metropolitan issues
and statewide issues with metropolitan significance.
AMM MEMBERS
1. Albertville * 26. Golden Valley 51. Prior Lake
2. Anoka 27. Hastings 52. Ramsey
3. Apple Valley 28. Hopkins 53. Richfield
4. Arden Hills 29. Hugo 54. Robbinsdale
5. Bayport 30. Independence 55. Rosemount
6. Blaine 31. Inver Grove Heights 56. St. Anthony
7. Bloomington 32. Lake Elmo 57. St. Francis
8. Brooklyn Center 33. Lakeville 58. St. Louis Park
9. Burnsville 34. Long Lake 59. St. Michael*
10. Champlin 35. Mahtomedi 60. St. Paul
11. Chanhassen 36. Maplewood 61. St. Paul Park
12. Chaska 37. Medicine Lake 62. Savage
13. Circle Pines 38. Mendota Heights 63. Shakopee
14. Columbia Heights 39. Minneapolis 64. Shorewood
15. Coon Rapids 40. Minnetonka 65. South St. Paul
16. Cottage Grove 41. Mound 66. Spring Park
17. Crystal 42. New Brighton 67. Sunfish Lake
18. Eagan 43. Newport 68. Three Rivers Park District*
19. Eden Prairie 44. North St. Paul 69. Wayzata
20. Edina 45. Northfield* 70. West St. Paul
21. Excelsior 46. Oak Park Heights 71. White Bear Lake
22. Falcon Heights 47. Oakdale 72. Woodbury
23. Farmington 48. Orono 73. Woodland
24. Forest Lake 49. Osseo
25. Fridley 5 O. Plymouth
* = Associate Member
2006 Legislative Policies iii
0
Municipal Revenue &
Taxation (I)
I-A Levy Limits
The AMM strongly opposes levy limits and urges the legislature to not re-enact them. TheAMM also
opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse
referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations to the local government budget and
taxing process. Expenditures for capital improvements such as infrastructure reconstruction should not
be subject to levy limits.
I-B Local GovernmentAid (LGA)
Local OovernmentAid (LOA), the only remaining form of general purpose state aid to Minnesota cities,
has been systematically reduced and modified_by previous legislatures, at a significant cost to most
metropolitan communities. As a result of these changes a majority of the metropolitan area's 183 cities
no longer receive any LGA.
. AMM supports the restoration of previous LGA cuts to fully fund the current LOA formula.
. AMM supports the continuation ofLGA to assist those cities whose public service needs and
costs exceeds their ability to pay.
. AMM supports modifying LGA formula floors and caps for the purpose of reducing annual
payment distribution volatility.
. AMM supports a state-conducted analysis of the impact of including the unique needs of rapidly
growing cities on the LGA formula
. AMM supports the inclusion of inflationary factors in the LGAformula.
I-C Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
The Market Value Homestead Credit is intended to be a state aid to individual homestead property
taxpayers. However, the MVHC reimbursement structure undermines accountability in a number of
ways, most directly by enabling the state to reduce or even eliminate the reimbursement to local units of
government while preserving the benefit of the credit to the homeowner.
To promote transparency, the credit should be structured as a direct credit to the taxpayer rather than a
reimbursement to local units of government. Further, any savings to the state resulting from reductions in
the MVHC should be spread proportionally to all benefiting taxpayers. As funding levels are restored
for LOA, the same consideration should be given to the Market Value Homestead Credit.
2006 Legislative Policies 1
v
Revenue & Taxation
I-D Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
The AMM opposes the use offiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan programs since it
results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the public.
TheAMM supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program until such time as an appropriate
replacement is developed.
I-E Limited Market Value (LMV)
TheAMM strongly opposes extension of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation
purposes to additional property classes since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of
property and create disparities between properties of equal value. The Legislature should monitor the
effects of the LMV phase-out to avoid excessive tax burden increases to currently benefiting properties.
The AMM believes that enhanced targeting for special circumstances better serves the tax system.
I-F Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits
TheAMM strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state constitution. This would
eliminate any flexibility on the part of the Legislature or local governments to respond to unanticipated
critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating economic situations. When services such as education, public
safety and health care require increased funding beyond the overall limit, experiences in at least one
other state indicate that other publicly funded services receive less than adequate resources. Constitu-
tiona1limits result in a reduced base during times of economic downturn and the inability to recover to
previous service levels when economic prosperity returns.
I-G State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property
The 2001 Property Tax Reform Act shifted general education funding to the state, and funded it, in part,
with a state property tax on commerciaVindustrial and cabin property. Since cities' only source of
general funds is the property tax, the AMM strongly opposes extension of a state-levied property tax to
additional classes of property.
I-H Class Rate Tax System
The AMM opposes elimination of the class rate taxsystem, or applying future levy increases to market
value, since this would further complicate the property tax system.
2 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
~
,
Revenue & Taxation
I-I Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
The Minnesota Department of Revenue is reviewing is regulations for calculating the taxable market
value of electric and natural gas utility property. This affects property taxes paid by investor-owned
utilities (lOUs) not only to the state, but also to local govenunents. Provisions in the current regulations,
such as depreciation limits and prescribed weights for the cost and income approaches to value, help to
preserve the taxable value of this property over the many decades it is in service.
IOU s enjoy a guaranteed rate of return. on their capital investments, but host cities experience the costs
of environmental damage, nuisance and lost economic development as the result ofthis property. IOUs
argue that their property is over-valued and that depreciation limits should be removed. However,
substantial changes to the utility property valuation rules could drastically reduce the taxable market
value that helps compensate host cities for hosting base load electric generation facilities.
The AMM opposes changes to the utility property valuation rules that would result in a significant
decline in the taxable market value of utility property. In the event new utility valuation rules produce a
decline, the Legislature should step in to help keep host cities financially whole as a way of compensat-
ing for the economic and environmental costs of hosting base load electric generation facilities, rather
than through increases in property class rates or other mechanisms.
I-J Revenue Diversification
The AMM supports revenue diversification for cities in order to reduce reliance on the property tax.
TheAMM opposes legislated reduction or limitation of various license fees, development fees or other
general fees, which would force increased property taxes to pay for related services.
I-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
The Legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local govenunent purchases without
requiring a reduction in other aids.
I-L City Revenue Stability & Fund Balance
The AMM opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary
to maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase capital goods and
infrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and maintain high level bond ratings.
2006 Legislative Policies 3
<
Revenue & Taxation
I-M Public Employees' RetirementAssociation (PERA)
The AMM supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary contribution increases.
TheAMMalso supports state assistance to local governments to cover any additional contribution '
burdens placed on cities over and above contribution increases required by employees. Cities should
receive sufficient notice of these increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting pur-
poses. Further, the AMMwill monitor legislative proposals and when necessary and appropriate,
, respond in amannerthat supports this policy and provides for the fair treatment of employees and the
protection of municipalities' interests.
I..N Aggregate Mining Fee
In order to provide an incentive for the extraction of local aggregate resources prior to urbanized
development, and in order to help offset the negative impacts of aggregate mining on local communities,
the state should authorize cities and townships to collect a per ton host community fee from the opera-
tors of aggregate mines with the fee proceeds to be deposited in the municipality's general fund.
1..0 State Program Revenue Sources
TheAMM supports continued development of the Metro area in a manner that is responsive to the
market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and the Metro area.
Consequently, the AMM supports the goals and objectives of the proposed Clean Water Legacy Act.
However, the AMM opposes any attempt by the state to finance state agencies, personnel, programs or
services through municipal utility collection or municipal property tax mechanisms. Municipal utility rates
are created to operate and maintain municipal utilities.. Localproperty taxes are created to finance local
government programs and services. The programs and services financed through the Clean Water
LegacyAct, or any future state program, should be financed through traditional state revenue raising .
sources such as income or sales taxes.
4 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
"
Genera.ILeg islation(ll)
II-A Mandates & Local Authority
The AMM: opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create mandated
additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or
funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities'
ability to fundtraditional service needs.
II-B City Enterprise Activities
The AMM supports cities' authority to establish city enterprise operations in response to community
need, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure resident's quality oflife. Creation of an enterprise
operation allows a city to provide the desired service while maintaining financial and management
control. The state should refrain from infringing on this ability to provide and control services for the
benefit of community residents.
II-G Firearms on City Property
Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns in city-owned buildings, facilities and parks. This would
allow locally elected officials to determine whether to allow permit-holders to bring guns into municipal
buildings, liquor stores, city council chambers and city sponsored youth activities. It is notAMM's
intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking lots, on city streets or city
sidewalks.
11-0 911 Telephone Tax
:public Safety Answering Points (pSAP's) must be able to rely in the future on a continuing source of
911 revenues at the state level to pay for upgrades and modifications to 10ca1911 systems, maintenance
and operational support, and dispatcher training. State funding should also support the technology and
training needed to provide number and location of wireless and VoIP calls to 911 on computer screens
and transmit that data to police, fire and first responders.
II-E 800 MHz Radio System
TheAMM supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (previously the Metro-
politan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800 Iv1Hz radio system, as long as cities are
2006 Legislative Policies 5
not forced to modify their current systems or become a part of the 800 MHz Radio System until they so
choose. TheAMM further urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to acquire
infrastructure and subscriber equipment (portable and mobile radios) required, since the prime purpose..
of this system is to allow public safety agencies and other units of government the ability to communicate
effectively.
II-F Impaired Waters
The A1\.1M supports continued development of the Metropolitan area in a manner that is responsive to
the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and Metro Area.
Insufficient resources for impaired water assessments, total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis, and
capital projects threaten the Metro Area's ability to respond to market demands for development and
redevelopment. Consequently, AMM supports the goals of the proposed Clean Water Legacy Act,
with an on-going review to assure that Clean Water Legacy Act funds are properly distributed between
assessment, TMDL development and capital projects to ensure both protection for our water resources
and support for future development and redevelopmentofthe Metro Area. AMM further supports the
use of capital funds for both storm water and wastewater projects.
II-G Building Codes
\......,/
Approximately 20,000 new housing units are constructed annually in the Metro Area. Structural and
water intrusion problems have surfaced inmany homes and commercial buildings that have been built
within the past 20 years. These problems have resulted in dissatisfied homeowners and conflict be..
tween the state, builders and cities. At the same time; thebuilding permitsurcharge, a fee collected by
cities and deposited with the state for the purpose of financing building related information, researchand
training, has been diverted to the state general fund for budget balancing purposes.
The AMM supports the rededication of the building permit surcharge for local building and construction
management purposes. AMM further supports ajoint effort by the state, cities andbuilders to collec-
tively identify the appropriate uses of the fund including education and analysis of new materials and
construction techniques, building code updating, building inspector training, development of performance
standards and identification of construction "best practices". AMM does not support legislative solu-
tions that fail to recognize the interrelationships between builders, state building codes and cities.
6 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing & Economic
Development (III)
Introduction
While the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven activity, all levels of
government - federal, state and local- have a role to play in facilitating the production and preservation
of affordable housing in Minnesota.
AMM's housing policies recognize the intergovernmental nature of this issue - starting with policies A
through D, which outline the role of cities. Cities are responsible for much of the ground-level housjng
policy in Minnesota - including land-use planning, building code enforcement, and often times the
packaging offinancial incentives. However, the state must also playa major role by empowering local
units of government and providing a variety of funding programs and tools. Policy E addresses the
state's responsibility to provide financial resources and establish a general direction for housing policy.
Finally, Policy F speaks to the urgent need for the federal government to increase its financial support
for the production and preservation of affordable housing.
III-A City Role in Housing
In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven
activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via responsibilities in the areasofland-
use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Many cities choose to play an additional
role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief: participating in state and regional housing
programs and supporting either local or countywide Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. Cities are
also responsible for ensuring the health and safety oflocal residents and the structural soundness and
livability of the local housing stock via building permits and inspections.
AMM s~ongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority to carry out these
functions in a locally determined manner.
11I-8 City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
AMM supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes that it is key to the economic and social .
well being of individual communities and the region. Cities can facilitate the production and preservation
of affordable and lifecycle housing by:
. Applyingfor funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
,
2006 Legislative Policies 7
Housing and Economic Development
. Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing
neighborhoods;
. Expediting review processes; and
. Working to reduce locally imposed development costs.
III-C Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary,
incentive-based approach to affordable housing development, brownfield clean up and mixed-use,
transit-friendly development and redevelopment. AMM strongly supports the continuation of this
approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities.
Currently the LCA program is primarily funded via a Metropolitan Council property tax levy, which is
subject to levy limits. AMM supports the loosening or removal of these levy limits as well as the appro-
priation of additional state funds for this program in order to allow it to more fully meet the demon-
strated need that currently exists in the metropolitan area.
Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the
program. Remaining interest earnings not used for program administration should be considered part of
the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to
established funding criteria
AMM supports the increased funding in the livable communities demonstration account in order to assist
communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their
particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment goals.
11I-0 Inclusionary Housing
AMM supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed-use neighborhoods through-
out a city and would support enabling legislation that authorizes cities to utilize new and innovative
means of achieVing this goal. However,AMM does not support passage of a mandatory inclusionary
housing law that would require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be
affordable to households at a particular income level.
Advocates of a mandatory inc1usionary housing law often point to its use in Montgomery County,
Maryland. However,AMM does not believe the situation or experiences of Montgomery County are
broadly applicable or transferable to the Twin Cities metropolitan region, given this area's development
stage, housing market and state-local government structure. Furthermore, a close look at the Mont-
gomery County experience shows that the production of affordable housing units has fallen-off signifi-
8 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing and Economic Development
cantly from the levels achieved in the mid-1980's to the point where, today, it is not achieving large-
scale production of affordable housing units.
Mandatory inclusionary housing policies are based on the assumption that in every new housing devel-
opment cities are capable of providing enough regulatory relief, via such methods as density bonuses
and/or fee waivers, for the developer to produce below market rate units without a direct ftnancial
subsidy or cross-subsidization from the other houses in the development. WhileAMM does believe
there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory reform, density bonuses, and fee waivers,
AMM does not believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve the desired levels of
affordability solely through these steps.
III-E State Role in Affordable Housing
Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHF A), the state estab-
lishes the general direction and prioritization of housing issues. The state financially supports a variety of
housing types including homeless shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, senior housing, and
family housing. The state must continue to be an active partner in addressing lifecycle and affordable
housing issues.
Particularly, the state should:
. Increase funding, including state general funds, for programs that support lifecycle and affordable
housing;
. Support housing programs that assist housing development throughout the low-to-moderate income
range;
. As a means of reconciling affordable housing with community development goals, AMM supports
housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in areas with high concentrations of
affordable housing;
. Continue the policy of using MHF A's investment earnings for housing programs; .
. Amend the tax exempt bond allocation statute to maximize its availability for affordable rental
housing;
. Provide exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the develop-
ment and production of affordable housing; and
. Authorize cities to amend their comprehensive plans in order to facilitate increased lifecycle and
affordable housing, with a simple majority vote of the city council, rather than a super majority.
III-F Federal Role in Affordable Housing
AMM encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels of funding for afford-
able housing. Federal investment in affordable housing will increase the supply of affordable and life
2006 Legislative Policies 9
Housing and Economic Development
cycle housing as well as increase the inter-jurisdictional collaboration between the two levels of govern-
ment. Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding the state and local governments in their efforts to
maintain and increase affordable housing throughout the state. AMM strongly encourages the following:
. To preserve and increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is a
catalyst for creating more affordable housing;
. To create and implement a more streamlined procedural method for local units of government to
participate and access federal funding and services dealing with grants, loans, and tax incentive
programs for economic and community development efforts; and
. To commit resources to Section 8 funding. It is a flexible, cost effective, and successful program
that has helped nearly two million families find housing through promotion of self-sufficiency and
stability.
III-G City Role in Economic Development
The State of Minnesota should continue to recognize cities as the primary unit of government respon-
sible for the implementation of economic development and redevelopment policies and land use con-
trols. However, the state should begin to shift its focus from addressing economic needs based on
population or location to a broader statewide perspective, which is based on economic development
strategies, economic development priorities and economic impact. The state should also recognize the
additional cost cities bear when undertaking redevelopment vs. development projects.
III-H Development
It should be the goal of the State Legislature to champion development throughout the state providing
enough sustainable funding to assure that the state remains competitive in a global marketplace. AMM
supports the following:
. Increased funding for the Contamination Cleanup Grant Account;
. Increased funding for the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Program;
. Reinstated funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund;
. Continued funding for the Urban Initiative Program;
. Continued support for the Bioscience partnerships between cities, companies, and the University of
Minnesota.
. Increased funding in the livable communities demonstration account in order to assist communities
with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular
location.
10 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing and Economic Development
III-I Redevelopment
Redevelopment allows local communities to adjust to changing market conditions, better utilize existing
public infrastructure, and maintain a viable local tax base. However, due to the higher up-front costs of
redevelopment, as compared to greenfield development, desirable redevelopment projects often require
public assistance. The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to provide cities with practical and
flexible resources that will address the challenges and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities.
AI\1M supports:
. Increased and sustained funding of a statewide redevelopment fund, administered by the Depart-
ment of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), with grants proportionally awarded on a
competitive basis to the Metropolitan Area and Greater Minnesota. AMM also supports a provi-
sion that any unused allocation be transferred back into the account and redistributed based on
need;
. Increased and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup Account for cleanup of polluted
land and the recycling of previously developed land.
III-J Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIP) has been and continues to be the primary tool available to local commu-
nities for assisting economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over time, several statutory
changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use. In addition, recent property tax reform
has resulted in a decreased state financial stake in city TIP decisions. In response the state should
authorize increased flexibility in local TIP decisions.
During the 2006 session,AMM urges the Legislature to:
. Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain the use of TIP;
. Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District criteria so that a
Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated parcels in addition to
railroad property;
. Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIP districts and, if warranted, provide cities with
additional authority to pay for possible TIP shortfalls.
Finally, the AI\1M encourages the State Auditor to continue to work towards a more efficient and
streamlined reporting process.
2006 Legislative Policies 11
.
III-K Eminent Domain
Current Minnesota law gives cities the authority to exercise eminent domain in pursuit of a public
purpose with the responsibility of balancing the rights of private landowners and the public's best
interest. In recent years the Legislature has considered changes to municipal eminent domain powers
that would impose a significantly higher standard of proof of public purpose, institute judicial review
over the deference currently given to local elected officials and authorize payment of a challenger's legal
fees by cities and their taxpayers.
. Al\1M opposes any changes that would severely limit cities' ability to ensure the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens or increase the cost born by cities during the eminent domain process;
. AMM supports efforts to maintain and strengthen cities' ability to exercise the power of eminent
domain for economic development and redevelopment purposes with the intent to reduce blight and
increase the local tax base and create jobs;
. AMM also supports the recognition that the vast majority of condemnations conducted by munici-
palities are considered friendly and non-adversarial;
. AMM opposes any changes that would significantly increase the likelihood of expensive and time-
consuming lawsuits against cities.
III-L This Old Housel This Old Shop
Al\1M supports the reenactment of the "This Old House" law, which allowed owners of older home-
stead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements to the
home. AMM also supports passage of similar legislation for owners of older commercial/industrial
property who make improvements that increase the property's market value by at least 12%.
III-M Business Subsidy Policy
Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the Business
Subsidy Act during the next legislative session, but should look to technical changes that would stream-
line state and local processes and procedures
12 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
;0
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
The statutorily-defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of193 cities and townships covering
over 3,000 square miles in seven counties. The effective and efficient delivery of certain public services
and the continued economic growth of this region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to
provide coordination and facilitate cooperation.
Therefore, AMM supports the continued existence of a metropolitan governance system for the pur-
pose of:
. Facilitating long-tennregion-wide planning with the cooperation and consideration of the affected
local units of government; and
. Planning for and providing those public services that are needed by the region, but cannot be
effectively and efficiently provided by local governments or the state.
With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists today, the region needs some entity to perform
these functions. However, the Twin Cities' metropolitan governance structure should not be granted,
nor should it assume, general local government or state agency powers.
IV-B Roles & Responsibilities of the Metropolitan.Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
. Plan for the orderly and economical development of the metropolitan areaby preparing a compre-
hensive development guide that includes long-range comprehensive policy plans for the transporta-
tion/aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space systems.
. Review local comprehensive plans for compatibility with the plans of neighboring communities,
consistency with Metropolitan Council policies and confonnitywith metropolitan system plans.
. Provide specific regional services and administer select regional grant programs as assigned by state
or federal law.
2006 Legislative Policies 13
<-
Metropolitan Agencies
. . Provide technical assistance, research and information to local units of government.
Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council's role, through the regional development guide and its accompa-
nying policy plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities with technical assistance and
incentives to achieve those goals. Local governments are ultimately responsible for zoning, land use
planning and development decisions within their borders.
Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to, the Metropolitan Council should be
the result of a specific statutory assignment or grant.
IV-C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open process that includes an opportu-
nity for local governments and other stakeholders to provide meaningful input. Council members should
be understanding of and responsive to the districts they represent while also serving the best interests of
the region. Metropolitan Council members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
IV-D Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combina-
tion of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants.
. The Metropolitan Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices
and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports
effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and
allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long-term service and fee stability.
. AMM supports the use of user fees and property taxes to fund regional projects so long as the
benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is compa-
rable to the benefit cities receive in return.
. AMM supports user fees for regional projects so long as the fees are not used to coerce a
particular response from cities.
. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are
collected.
IV-E Regional Systems
Regional systems are currently defmed in statute as transportation (with aviation), wastewater treatment
and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's
authority for them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the reach of
any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change.
14 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
.,
Metropolitan Agencies
The system plans/statements prepared by the Metropolitan Council for these regional systems should be
specific in tenns of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consider-
ation in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans
will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than
not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.
Additional regional systems should only be established if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or
concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the four
existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established
regional or state funding source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that
might be established. Water supply does not meet these criteria.
IV-F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should:
. Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely
than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the four
system plans.
. Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan amendments and
development applications.
. Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for substantial impact
on systems plans.
. Require the infonnation needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not pre-
scribe additional content or fonnat beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use
Planning Act (LUPA).
. Not impose sanctions or monetary penalties when local comprehensive plans are deemed incom-
patible with the systems plans or fails to meet a statutory deadline but where cities have demon-
strated a good faith effort.
IV-G Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions, which are the implementation of
cities' comprehensive plans, should not he conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council
or any other governmental agency. AMM strongly opposes the creation of any appeals boards with the
authority to supersede city zoning decisions.
2006 Legislative Policies 15
"
.
Metropolitan Agencies
IV-H Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecasts project an additional 930,000 people and 460,000
households for the seven~county metropolitan area by the year 2030.
In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life:
. natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment;
. significant new reso':lfces will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and
. new households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second-ring suburbs, and
developing cities through both development and redevelopment.
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies:
. the state of Minnesota must contribute additional fmancial resources - particularly in the areas of
transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of
parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be
responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council.
. the Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations ofits authority and continue to work with
cities in a collaborative, incentives-based manner; and
. metropolitan counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due
to the critical importance of facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in
accommodating forecasted growth.
. greater recognition must be given to the fact that the ''true'' metropolitan region extends beyond the
traditional seven-county area and the need to work collaborative1y with the twelve adjacent counties
in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities wi~ those counties. The region faces environmental,
transportation and land-use issues that connot be solved by the seven-county area alone.
IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are scheduled to review their comprehensive plans and submit any necesssary updates to the
Metropolitan Council in 2008. The adoption of a new metropolitan development guide does not
warrant a change in this schedule.
\
Any future changes to the schedule for local comprehensive planning should be accompanied by the
statutory establishment of a complementary schedule for regional planning. This schedule should:
16 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
,
Metropolitan Agencies
(1) protect cities from being forced into a state of perpetual planning in response to regional actions; and
(2) ensure sufficient time for cities to understand and incorporate regional policies into their local plan-
ning efforts.
IV-J Natural Resource Protection
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and
maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of provid-
ing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. However, any additional steps
taken by the Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that:
. The state has a significant role to play in the protection of natural resources - especially when those
resources are significant to a multi-county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state's
population and a travel destination for many more. Given the limited availability of resources and the
artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan com-
munities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these
resources. AMM urges the state and! or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial assistance for
the preservation of regionally signficantnatural resources.
. The completion oflocal Natural Resourcelnventorie~ and Assessments (NRI/ A) is not a regional
system nor is it a required component oflocal comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use
Planning Act.
. The protection of natural resources will have to be balanced with the need to accommodate growth
and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and pro-
vide transportation and transit connections. . Decisions about the zoning or land-use designations of
specific parcels of land not already contained within a public park, nature preserve or other protected
area are, and should remain, the responsibility oflocal units of government.
IV-K Federal Clean Water Mandates
Recent legal action related to impaired waters poses a significant threat to the development and redevel-
opment interests of the Twin Cities. However, because the Environmental Protection Agency measures
compliance ona statewide basis, and because watersheds and river basins transcend political bound-
aries, meeting clean water standards is a statewide issue. Clean water requirements will affect both
wastewater treatment and storm water systems.
The Metropolitan Council should partner with federal and state agencies, as well as MetropolitanArea
cities, to arrive at solutions to current legal challenges associated with the federal Clean Water Act that
are both fmancially and environmentally appropriate for cities, the region and the state.
2006 Legislative Policies 17
~
.
IV-L Inflow and Infiltration (III)
The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Plan establishes an III surcharge on cities
that are determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of clear water to the MCES wastewater
treatment system. Currently 35 cities have been identified as excessive III contributors. AMM recog-
nizes the importance of controlling III because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater
treatment systems and because excessive III in one city can affect development capacity of another city
that lies down pipe. Yet, AMM opposes an III surcharge until such time that the Metropolitan Council,
in conjunction with cities, establishes criteria for the surcharge. At a minimum, the criteria should
include:
. A data supported definition of "excessive III" that includes data over a five year period with
periodic updates that reflect municipal mitigation efforts
. Flow data that verifies that the origin of the III is within a city's collection system and not a
MCES interceptor, or not from another jurisdiction
. The amount of the surcharge is commensurate with the cost of solving the problem
. The surcharge is levied as a last resort and will not be charged unless a city fails to develop
a mitigation plan in a timely manner
. The surcharge is discontinued when the city adopts a construction schedule to implement
their III mitigation plan
. All money collected from an individual city via the surcharge is returned to the city for their
mitigation efforts
AMM encourages the Metropolitan Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area III
mitigation through a future Clean Water Legacy Act or similar legislation.
IV-M Water Supply
The 2005 Legislafure authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out planning activities to address the
water supply needs of the Metro Area. These activities must include:
. Technical ground water supply and use data
. A master Metro Area water supply plan
. Recommendations for clarifying the roles oflocal, regional and state governments
. Recommendations for streamlining and consolidating decision making and approval processes
. Recommendations for funding future planning and capital investments
In addition, the Legislature created a MetropolitanArea Water Supply Advisory Committee, with five
municipal members, to assist the Council with its planning activities.
In addition to the Metropolitan Council, there are currently at least five state agencies with water related
jurisdiction. There are also several federal agencies involved in water issues. AMM supports the
18 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
.
.
Metropolitan Council activities associated with clarifying local, regional and state water supply roles.
AMM also supports any analytical work that will help streamline and consolidate the myriad and often
conflicting water supply permitting processes. AMM further supports efforts to identify capital funding
sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. However, AMM opposes the insertion of the
Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena.
The AM:M further opposes the elevation of water supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption
of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. At this time, we
oppose any regional taxes or fees for water supply planning.
IV-N Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state parks. There-
fore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improve-
ment of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks.
2006 Legislative Policies 19
,
.
Transportation (V)
V-A Transportation and Transit Funding
AMM strongly supports increased funding for transit and highways, both of which are a critical need in
the metropolitan area. In addition, funding for mass transit, including transit ways, light rail or heavy rail
in existing corridors, should be dedicated in a manner consistent with current highway funding. Funds
allocated to the metropolitan area should be flexible so that the most efficient and cost effective trans-
portation solution may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem (congestion relief) can be ad-
dressed.
AMM supports full funding of the transportation and transit needs based on projected growth over the
next twenty-five years. Th~ Metro Area is predicted to grow by one million people by 2030 with a
funding need for transportation and transit of over one billion dollars per year for the next fifteen years.
AMM feels it is important to join a coalition of organizations to better address the transportation financ-
ing needs of the entire state and will be cooperating with groups with the same mission.
AMM supports the following list of revenue raising options in any combination, that has the political and
financial viability to produce improved roads and transit.
. Gas Tax
. Additional Highway Bonding
. License Tab Fee Restoration
. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Increase
. Whe~lage Tax
. . StreetUtilityFee
. RoadAccess Fee
AMM supports the constitutional dedication of the MVST, as passed by the 2005 legislature. AMM
will oppose any effort to change the current language. All non-transportation programs should be funded
from sources other than currently dedicated transportation funds.
V-B Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that serves both com-
muters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be comprised of a mix ofHOV lanes,
express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corri-
2006 Legislative Policies 21
.
.
Transportation
dors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should
be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the region's changing
travel patterns.
In order to slow the growth in congestion and provide regional residents and visitors with a realistic
alternative to the automobile, the regional transit system needs a funding source that is both stable and
capable of growing with the region. TheAMM is opposed to legislative directives that constrain the
ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse
commute routes, suburb-to-suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that
may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box.
V-C Transit Operating Subsidies
The Twin Cities MetropolitanArea is served by a regional transit system that is now expanding to
include rail transit and dedicated bus ways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system
should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities
and counties should not be singled out to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service
within this regional system.
V-D Road Access Fee
In order to fairly provide for major street improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision
development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the
Legislature should authorize cities to establish, at their option, a road development access charge to be
collected at the time that subdivisions are approved and/or at the time building permits are issued similar
to park dedication fees.
V-E Transportation Utility
TheAMM supports legislation to authorize cities to establish a street utility for street construction and
reconstruction of aging infrastructure, similar to the existing storm water utility, so that costs of improved
facilities can be more fairly charged to the users rather than the general population as a whole.
V-F Highway Turnbacks & Funding
The AMM supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads on a phased basis using functional
classification and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding
of roadway improvements and continuing maintenance.
22 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
c
.
Transportation
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increase, to absorb addi-
tional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal turnback fund is not
adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. TheAMM supports, through the state bonding process,
additional funds for local roads and bridges. Additional funding would begin to ease the burden munici-
palities are bearing due to the increased costs of road maintenance.
TheAMM supports additional funding for municipalities who are assuming the role of maintenance and
upkeep on city streets, which maintain a level of traffic consistent with state highways. Cities should be
compensated for providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. The state has abro-
gated its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by requiring, through omission,
that cities bear the burden of maintenance on major state roads.
V-G "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role
TheAMM supports continuation of the TransportationAdvisory Board (TAB), with a majority oflocally
elected officials as members and participating in the process. TAB was developed to meet federal
requirements designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for the continu-
ous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds
among metropolitan areaprojects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (IS TEA) and the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st
Century (TEA21).
V-H Red Light Cameras
Cities should be allowed to enforce traffic laws and promote public safety on Minnesota's streets and
highways through the use of photo enforcement technology, including motion imaging recording system
technology.
V-I Airport Noise Mitigation
AMM supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize the impacts of the
MetropolitanAirports Commission (MAC) operated facilities on neighboring communities. The MAC
should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input
process that considers the priorities and concerns of the impacted cities and their residents. The MAC
and state should seek long-term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all
homes in the 64-60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and charges
collected from airport users, as well as state and federal funds.
2006 Legislative Policies 23
.
'.
Transportation
V-J Cities Under 5,000 Population
Cities under 5,000 population do not receive any non-property tax funds for their collector and arterial
streets. Citing this fact, the 2005 Legislature appropriated $4 million in additional local government aid
(LOA) to be distributed to cities under 5,000 population. Current CSAH distributions to metropolitan
counties are inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Criteria such
as the number of average daily trips should be established in a small city local road improvement pro-
gram for funding qualification and a distribution method devised. Possible funding sources include the
five-percent set-aside account in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to COlUlty
municipal accounts and/or state general funds.
V-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
TheAMM supports modification of the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distribution formula to
more fairly account for total vehicle miles traveled on metropolitan county CSAH funded roads. Al-
though only 1 0% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle
miles traveled. The metro counties receive less than 20% of the CSAH distribution and have instituted
city cost participation, so that cities are now forced to pay up to 45% of the CSAH road proj ect cost in
some areas.
V-L Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Minnesota Statute directs MnDOT to submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a
halfto two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizenlbusiness/municipal
input. IfMnDOT does not concur with requested changes, MnDOT may appeal. Currently, that
process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeal board are
binding on both the city and MnDOT.
TheAMM opposes any changes to the current statute that would allow MnDOTto totally disregard the
appeal board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change would significantly minimize
MnDOT's desire or need to negotiate in good faith with the city for appropriate project access and
alignment. It would make the public hearing and appeal process meaningless.
The AMM opposes elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal process for the same
reasons we oppose changing the process as it applies to MnDOT trunk highway projects.
24 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
~
.
V-M Plat Authority
AMM supports the current law granting counties review and comment authority for access and drainage
issues for city plats abutting county roads. AMM opposes any statutory change that would grant the
county veto power or shorten the 120-day review and permit process time.
V-N City Speed Limit Control
The AMM supports uniform speed limit control of city roads and streets as currently provided by law
and opposes changes allowing different speeds especially in contiguous cities.
v-a Municipal State Aid
AMM supports an increase in the percentage of Municipal State Aid dollars that may be used for street
operations and maintenance.
2006 Legislative Policies 25
.
r
.
.'
Committee Rosters (VI)
Municipal Revenue Policy Committee
Jerry Splinter, City Manager, Coon Rapids (Committee Chair)
Clark Arneson, Asst. City Manager, Bloomington
Patrick Born, Chief Financial Officer, Minneapolis
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Teresa Daly, Councilmember, Burnsville
Jerry Faust, Councilmember, St. Anthony
Tony Feffer, Councilmember, White Bear Lake
Walt Fehst, City Manager, Columbia Heights
Rick Getschow, City Manager, Hopkins
Marcia Glick, City Manager, Robbinsdale
Pat Harris, Councilmember, St. Paul
Alice Hulbert, Councilmember, Edina
Eric Johnson, Administrator, Oak Park Heights
Nicholas Juarez, Councilmember, West St. Paul
Jim Keinath, City Administrator, Circle Pines
Tom Lawell, City Administrator, Apple Valley
Linda Masica, Councilmember, Edina
Bruce Nawrocki, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Tammy Omdal, Chief Financial Officer, Burnsville
Martin Rafferty, Administrator, Lake Elmo
Don Rambow, Finance Director, White Bear Lake
Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis
Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Cottage Grove
Steven Sine1l, City Assessor, Eden Prairie
Matt Smith, Dir. Office of Financial Services, St. Paul
Steve Stahmer, Administrator, Long Lake
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director, Prior Lake
Wendy Underwood, Legislative Liaison, St. Paul
David Urbia, Administrator, Farmington
Robert Williams, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Jim Willis, Administrator, Inver Grove Heights
Jim Willis, Councilmember, Plymouth
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
2006 Legislative Policies 27
4
..,
".
r;
Committee Rosters
Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee
Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley (Committee Chair)
Bonnie Balach, Contract Consultant, Minneapolis
Janis Callison, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Tom Daniel, Mgr. Econ. Dev., Minneapolis
Walt Fehst, City Manager, Columbia Heights
Christy Jo Fogarty, Councilmember, Farmington
Bryan Hartman, Program Manager, Bloomington
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
Lynn Moratzka, Councilmember, Hastings
Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal
Tammy Omdal, Chief Financial Offcr./Dep. City Mgr, Burnsville
Ron Rankin, Community Development Director, Minnetonka
Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake
Steve Stahmer, Administrator, Long Lake
Bob Streetar, Community Development Director, Columbia Heights
John Sullivan, Community Development Dir., Prior Lake
Wendy Underwood, Legislative Liaison, St. Paul
Craig Waldron, Administrator, Oakdale
Robert Williams, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Liz Workman, Councilmember, Burnsville
Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee
Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director, Plymouth (Committee Chair)
Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville
Craig Dawson, Administrator, Shorewood
Charles Dillerud, Planner, Lake Elmo
Dean Johnston, Councilmember, Lake Elmo
Jane Kansier, Planning Director, Prior Lake
Myrna Kragness,Mayor, Brooklyn Center
Larry Lee, Community Dev. Dir. Bloomington
Tom Link, Community Development Director, Inver Grove Heights
Steve Menden, Councilmember, Shako pee
Tammy Omdal, Chief Financial Officer, Burnsville
Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka
James Smith, Councilmember, Independence
Barb Sporlein, Planning Director, Minneapolis Continued. ..
28 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
.
r.
.'
.;;;'
Committee Rosters
Pierre Willette, Gov i Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Steve Wilson, Councilmember, Farmington
Ron Wood, City Manager, Blaine
WendyWulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
Transportaton and General Government Policy Committee
Steve Larson, Mayor, New Brighton (Committee Chair)
Steve Albrecht, Dir. of Public Wks./City Eng, Prior Lake
Chuck DeVore, Councilmember, White Bear Lake
Pam Dmytrenko, Asst. to City Manager, Richfield
Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Bloomington
. KlaraFabry, Dir. of Public Works/Engr., Minneapolis
Matt Fulton, City Manager, New Brighton
Dan Gustafson, Councilmember, Burnsville
Chuck Haas, Councilmember, Hugo
Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
Bill Hargis, Mayor, Woodbury
Jon Haukaas, Director of Public Works, Fridley
Marv Johnson, Mayor, Independence
Dave Kelso, Councilmember, Circle Pines
Mike Klassen, St. Paul
Steve Lillehaug, Asst. City Eng./Traffic Eng.
Karen Lowery Wagner, Gov i Relations, Minneapolis
John Maczko, Transportation Dir.--Pulic Works Dept.
Mary McComber, Councilmember, OakParkHeights
Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shako pee
Veid Muiznieks, Councilmember, St. Paul Park
Dave Osberg, Administrator, Hastings
Dave Pokorney, Manager, Chaska
David Pritzlaff, Councilmember, Farmington
Martin Rafferty, Administrator, Lake Elmo
Jim Smith, Councilmember, Independence
Dick Swanson, Councilmember, Blaine
Wendy Underwood, Legislative Liaison, St. Paul
MIchelle Wolfe, Administrator, Arden Hills
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
2006 LegislativePolicies 29