HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.F.3. Metro Cities 2008 Legislative Policies
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
.JJ. F~l,
s: F. 3 ·
COtJSEr~T
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Metro Cities 2008 Legislative Policies
DATE: November 15, 2007
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is asked to endorse the Metro Cities 2008 Legislative Policies.
BACKGROUND:
Each year Metro Cities (formerly the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) has
four policy study teams to review legislative proposals that directly affect its municipal
membership. The four committees are:
. Municipal Revenue and Taxation
. General Legislation (and Transportation)
. Housing and Economic Development
. Metropolitan Agencies
The committees met a minimum of four times during August and September to review
proposed policies, and have recommended them as drafts (attached) to the Metro Cities
general membership for adoption. The policy adoption meeting will be held November
29th.
Typically there are few changes from year to year. Knowing the Council's previous
interest in Eminent Domain (found on page 15 and 16), it should be noted that this year's
language is nearly identical to the 2007 policy, except that an additional bullet point has
been added:
. Allow for modifications to the effective date language in the 2006 legislation
in order to accommodate delays in project schedules that are beyond the
control of the acquiring authority.
This last bullet point was added because there were some cities that were in the process
of an Eminent Domain project that were caught in the middle ofthe effects of the 2006
law change. The changes proposed in this amended point would allow those cities to
proceed under the language under the old law, for those projects. It would not effect
Shakopee. .
I would note that while the Metro Cities' position on Eminent Domain is language with
which most cities agree, it is highly unlikely that there is going to be any changes at the
Legislature which come about as a result ofthis position--it didn't happen in 2007, and
the legislative makeup is identical to last years.
If there are other questions about any of the specific policies, please contact me.
RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING:
This supports Goal D "Vibrant, Resilient and Stable".
. RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the Council endorse the 2008 Metro Cities Legislative Policies, and to
identify any changes.
Mayor Schmitt and I will attend the November 29th policy adoption meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs, it should, by motion, endorse the 2008 Metro Cities Legislative
Policies.
if\) ~~;Qp
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
~~~
~"
ETRO
CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
January 2008
Legislative Policies
145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299
Website: www.amm145.org
v
Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue & Taxation (I)
State and Local Fiscal Relationship (I-A) 1
Levy Limits (I-B) 1
Local Government Aid (LGA) (I-C) 1
State Property Tax Relief Programs/Market Value
Homestead Credit (I-D) 2
Limited Market Value (I-E) 2
Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution (I-F) 2
Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits (I-G) 3
State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property (I-H) 3
Class Rate Tax System (I-I) 3
Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility (I-J) 3
Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases (I-K) 4
City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance (I-L) 4
Public Employees' Retirement Association (PER A) (I-M) 4
Aggregate Mining Fee (I-N) 4
State Program Revenue Sources (1-0) 4
Post Employment Benefits (I-P) 5
General Legislation (II)
Mandates & Local Authority (II-A)
City Enterprise Activities (II-B)
7
7
2008 Legislative Policies
T able of Contents
Firearms on City Property (II-C)
911 Telephone Tax (II-D)
800 MHz Radio System (II-E)
Impaired Waters (II-F)
Building Codes (II-G)
Administrative Fines (II-H)
Residential Care Facilities (II-I)
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
Housing & Economic Development (III)
Introduction 11
City Role in Housing (III-A) 11
City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing (III-B) 11
Inclusionary Housing (III-C) 12
State Role in Affordable Housing (III-D) 12
Federal Role in Affordable Housing (III-E) 13
City Role in Economic Development (III-F) 13
Development (III-G) 13
Redevelopment (III-H) 14
Tax Increment Financing (III-I) 14
Eminent Domain (III-J) 15
This Old Housel This Old Shop (III-K) 16
Business Subsidy Policy (III-L) 16
Internet Technology (III-M) 16
Metropolitan Council Housing Targets (III-N) 17
Mortgage Foreclosure (111-0) 17
ii
2008 Legislative Policies
Table of Contents
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
Purpose of Metropolitan Governance (IV-A) 19
Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council (IV-B) 19
Selection of Metropolitan Council Members (IV -C) 20
Funding Regional Services (IV-D) 20
Regional Systems (IV-E) 20
Review of Local Comprehensive Plans (IV-F) 21
Local Zoning Authority (IV-G) 21
Regional Growth (IV-H) 22
Comprehensive Planning Schedule (IV-I) 23
Natural Resource Protection (IV-J) 23
Federal Clean Water Mandates (IV-K) 24
Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) (IV-L) 24
Water Supply (IV-M) 25
Service Availability Charge (SAC) (IV-N) 25
Funding Regional Parks & Open Space (IV -0) 26
Livable Communities (IV-P) 26
Affordable Housing Need (IV-Q) 26
Density (IV-R) 27
Transportation (V)
Transportation and Transit Funding (V -A)
Regional Transit System (V-B)
Transit Operating Subsidies (V-C)
Road Access Fee (V-D)
Street Utility (V-E)
29
30
30
30
30
2008 Legislative Policies
iii
Table of Contents
Highway Turnbacks & Funding (V-F) 30
13C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials'
Role (V-G) 31
Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws (V -H) 31
Airport Noise Mitigation (V-I) 31
Cities Under 5,000 Population (V-J) 32
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution
Formula (V-K) 32
Municipal Input! Consent for Trunk Highways and
County Roads (V-L) 33
Plat Authority (V-M) 33
City Speed Limit Control (V-N) 33
Speed Limits Surrounding City Parks and Schools (V-a) 33
MnDOT Maintenance Budget (V-P) 33
Committee Rosters (VI)
2007 Housing & Economic Development Committee 35
2007 Metropolitan Agencies Committee 35
2007 Municipal Revenue & Taxation Committee 36
2007 Transportation & General Government Committee 37
2008 Legislative policies
iv
Municipal Revenue &
Taxation (I)
I-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship
Metro Cities supports a strong state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the
following principles:
. Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that emphasizes
maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication between the
state and local units of government, and to the public, about state and local roles and
responsibilities;
. Certainty and predictability in revenue sources including the property tax and local
government aids;
. Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to be
met, mandates to be funded, and that maintain our state's economic vitality and
competitiveness;
. Recognition that a 'one size fits all' system that limits cities to the property tax as the
major non-state aid revenue source does not fit all and to permit access to other tax
and revenue sources that are not currently accessible as well as oppose reductions or
limitations on the use of various license, development, or other general fees to pay for
related services;
. An equitable revenue and finance system that values all citizens receiving adequate
levels of city services at similar levels of taxation, provides financial assistance to
compensate cities and their taxpayers for overburdens created by non-taxpaying users
of services and reduces tax burden disparities among cities.
1-8 Levy Limits
Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits and urges the legislature to not re-enact them.
Metro Cities 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-C Local Government Aid (LGA)
Local Government Aid (LGA), 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.
2008 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
· Metro Cities supports the restoration of previous LOA cuts to fully fund the current
LGA formula.
· Metro Cities supports the continuation of LGA to assist those cities whose public
service needs and costs exceeds their ability to pay.
. Metro Cities supports modifying the LGA formula to address geographic disparities
in LGA distribution and the needs of metro area cities that are not addressed through
the current formula and distribution.
. Metro Cities supports modifying LGA formula floors and caps for the purpose of
reducing annual payment distribution volatility.
. Metro Cities supports the inclusion of inflationary factors in the LGA formula.
. Metro Cities supports a state-conducted analysis ofthe LGA formula that includes an
examination of existing geographic disparities in the distribution of local government
aid, an analysis of current need and capacity factors and consideration of alternative
factors, an analysis of the formula used to calculate aid for small cities, volatility in
the local government aid distribution and the impact of including the unique needs of
rapidly growing cities on the LGA formula.
I-D State Property Tax Relief Programs/Market Value Homestead Credit
Metro Cities supports state funded property tax relief programs for homestead property
taxpayers such as the circuit breaker and enhanced targeting for special circumstances.
Metro Cities supports the Market Value Homestead Credit Program, a state aid to
individual homestead property taxpayers, as a direct credit to the taxpayer, rather than a
reimbursement to local units of government. The current 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. Further, any savings to the state
resulting from reductions in the MVHC should be spread proportionally to all benefiting
taxpayers.
I-E Limited Market Value
Metro Cities 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 Limited Market Value (LMV)
phase-out to avoid excessive tax burden increases to currently benefiting properties.
Metro Cities believes that enhanced targeting for special circumstances better serves the
tax system.
I-F Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Metro Cities opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan
programs since it results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the
public.
2
2008 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Metro Cities supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program until such time as
an appropriate replacement is developed. Metro Cities supports a state conducted
analysis of the Fiscal Disparities Program to determine whether the program is meeting
its original goals and objectives, and whether changes to the program should be
considered to better meet those objectives.
I-G Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits
Metro Cities 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.
Constitutional limits result in a reduced base during times of economic downturn and the
inability to recover to previous service levels when economic prosperity returns.
I-H 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 commercial/industrial and cabin property.
Since cities' only source of general funds is the property tax, Metro Cities strongly
opposes extension of a state-levied property tax to additional classes of property.
I-I Class Rate Tax System
Metro Cities opposes elimination of the class rate tax system, or applying future levy
increases to market value, since this would further complicate the property tax system.
I-J Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
The Minnesota Department of Revenue has revised its regulations for calculating the
taxable market value of electric and natural gas utility property. This affects property
taxes paid by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) not only to the state, but also to local
governments. Provisions in the previous regulations, such as depreciation limits and
prescribed weights for the cost and income approaches to value, helped to preserve the
taxable value of this property over the many decades it is in service.
IOUs 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 of this property. IOUs argued that their property is over-valued and that
depreciation limits should be removed. However, changes to the utility property
valuation rules will drastically reduce the taxable market value that helps compensate
host cities for hosting base load electric generation facilities.
2008 Legislative Policies
3
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Metro Cities opposes changes to the utility property valuation rules that result in a
significant decline in the taxable market value of utility property. In the event the new
utility valuation rules produce a decline, the Legislature should step in to help keep host
cities financially whole as a way of compensating 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-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
The Legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local government
purchases without requiring a reduction in other aids.
I-L City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance
Metro Cities 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.
I-M Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA)
Metro Cities supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary
contribution increases. Metro Cities also 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 purposes. Further, Metro Cities
will monitor legislative proposals and when necessary and appropriate, respond in a
manner that 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 operators of aggregate mines with the fee proceeds
to be deposited in the municipality's general fund.
1-0 State Program Revenue Sources
Metro Cities 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 metro area. Metro Cities supports the goals and objectives of the Clean Water
Legacy Act. However, Metro Cities 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
4
2008 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
maintain municipal utilities. Local property taxes are created to finance local
government programs and services. The programs and services financed through the
Clean Water Legacy Act, or any future state program, should be financed through
traditional state revenue raising sources such as income or sales taxes.
I-P Post Employment Benefits
Metro Cities supports statutory authority allowing local governments to establish trusts
from which to fund post-employment health and life insurance benefits for public
employees, with participation by cities on a strictly voluntary basis, in recognition that
cities have differing local needs and circumstances. Cities should also retain the ability
to determine the level of post employment benefits to be provided to employees.
Metro Cities supports a study of the fiscal impacts to both cities and retirees of pooling
retirees separately from active employees.
2008 Legislative Policies
5
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
6
2008 Legislative Policies
~
General Legislation (II)
II-A Mandates & Local Authority
Metro Cities 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 potentially cause
increased property taxes which impede cities' ability to fund traditional service needs.
11-8 City Enterprise Activities
Metro Cities supports cities having the authority to establish city enterprise operations in
response to community needs, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure residents'
quality of life. 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-C 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 not Metro Cities' 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 (PSAPs) must be able to continue to rely on state 911
revenues to pay for upgrades and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and
operational support, and dispatcher training. State funding should also support the
technology and training needed to provide the number and location of wireless and voice
over internet protocol (V oIP) calls to 911 on computer screens and transmit that data to
police, fire and first responders.
II-E 800 MHz Radio System
Metro Cities supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board
(previously the Metropolitan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800
MHz radio system, as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or
become a part of the 800 MHz Radio System until they so choose. Metro Cities further
urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to obtain required
infrastructure and subscriber equipment (portable and mobile radios) as well as provide
funding for operating costs, since the prime purpose of this system is to allow public
safety agencies and other units of government the ability to communicate effectively.
2008 Legislative Policies
7
General Legislation
II-F Impaired Waters
Metro Cities 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, Metro Cities supports continued funding of the 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 redevelopment
of the metro area. Metro Cities further supports the continued use of capital funds for
both storm water and wastewater projects.
II-G Building Codes
Thousands of new housing units are constructed annually in the metro area. Structural
and water intrusion problems have surfaced in many houses and commercial buildings
built in the last 20 years. These problems have resulted in dissatisfied homeowners and
conflicts between the state, builders and cities. At the same time, the building permit
surcharge, a fee collected by cities and deposited with the state for the purpose of
financing building related information, research and training, has been diverted to the
state general fund for budget balancing purposes.
Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the newly created
Construction Code Fund, with proportional distribution based on the area of enforcement
where the fees were received. Metro Cities further supports a joint effort by the state,
cities and builders to collectively identify appropriate uses for the fund, including
education, analysis of new materials and construction techniques, building code updating,
building inspector training, development of performance standards and identification of
construction "best practices." Metro Cities does not support legislative solutions that fail
to recognize the interrelationships between builders, state building codes and cities.
8
2008 Legislative Policies
General Legislation
II-H Administrative Fines
Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with increasing
costs to local units of government. The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate
those costs. Metro Cities supports the use of administrative fines for local regulatory
ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, minor moving violations
up to 10 mph over the limit, and public safety and nuisance ordinances. Metro Cities
supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for regulatory matters that are
not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher level state traffic and criminal offenses. Metro
Cities also endorses a fair hearing process before a disinterested third party.
II-I Residential Care Facilities
Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential
care facilities have appropriate care and supervision, and that neighborhoods are not
disproportionately impacted by high concentrations of residential care facilities. Under
current law, operators of certain residential care facilities are not required to notify cities
when they intend to purchase single-family housing for this purpose. Cities do not have
the authority to regulate the locations of group homes and residential care facilities.
Cities have reasonable concerns about high concentrations of these facilities in residential
neighborhoods, and additional traffic and service deliveries surrounding these facilities
when they are grouped closely together. Municipalities recognize and support the
services residential care facilities provide. However, cities also have an interest in
preserving balance between group homes and other uses in residential neighborhoods.
Cities should have statutory authority to require licensed agencies and licensed providers
that operate residential care facilities to notify the city of properties being operated as
residential care facilities. The Legislature should also require the establishment of non-
concentration standards for residential care facilities to prevent clustering and require the
appropriate county agencies to enforce these rules.
2008 Legislative Policies
9
General Legislation
10
2008 Legislative Policies
^
," "(1
,,' ~,
~1 t~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
L_______.1
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.
Metro Cities' housing policies recognize and support the intergovernmental nature of this
issue - including participation from federal, state, regional and local governments.
Policies A through C outline the role of cities. Cities are responsible for much of the
ground-level housing policy in Minnesota - including land-use planning, building code
enforcement, and often times the packaging of financial incentives. However, the state
and Metropolitan Council must also playa major role by empowering local units of
government and providing a variety of funding programs and tools. Policy D addresses
the state's responsibility to provide financial resources and establish a general direction
for housing policy. Finally, Policy E 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 areas of land-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 of local residents and the structural
soundness and livability of the local housing stock via building permits and inspections.
Metro Cities strongly 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
Metro Cities' supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes its importance 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:
. Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
2008 Legislative Policies
11
Housing & 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 Inclusionary Housing
Metro Cities supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed-use
neighborhoods throughout a city. However, Metro Cities 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
because these units can't be produced without a deep developer subsidy or cross-
subsidization from the other houses in the development.
While Metro Cities believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory
reform, density bonuses, and fee waivers, Metro Cities does not believe a mandatory
inclusionary housing approach can achieve the desired levels of affordability solely
through these steps. The Metropolitan Council, in creating its affordable housing targets,
must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council
should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct
financial assistance and/or advocating for additional resources through the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency.
11I-0 State Role in Affordable Housing
Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the
state establishes 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 and, possibly, alternate sources of
revenue, 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
Metro Cities supports housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in
areas with high concentrations of affordable housing, where the private market might
not otherwise invest;
. Continue the policy of using MHFA's investment earnings for housing programs;
. Amend the tax exempt bond allocation statute to maximize its availability for
affordable rental housing;
12
2008 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
. Provide exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to
the development 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-E Federal Role in Affordable Housing
Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels
of funding for affordable housing. Federal investment in affordable housing will increase
the supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as increase the inter-jurisdictional
collaboration between the two levels of government. Federal funding plays a critical role
in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to maintain and increase affordable
housing throughout the state. Metro Cities 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;
. To preserve resources to sustain existing public housing throughout the Metro Area;
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-F City Role in Economic Development
The State of Minnesota should continue to recognize cities as the primary unit of
government responsible for the implementation of economic development and
redevelopment policies and land use controls. 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-G Development
It should be the goal of the state Legislature to champion development throughout the
state by providing enough sustainable funding to assure that the state remains competitive
in a global marketplace. Metro Cities supports the following:
. 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;
. Increased funding for the Contamination Cleanup Grant Account;
2008 Legislative Policies
13
Housing & Economic Development
. Increased funding for the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Program;
. Continued 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;
. New funding for a transit related development and redevelopment grant program to
better leverage existing programs in areas that are, or will be served by transit
projects.
III-H 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. Metro Cities supports:
. Increased and sustained funding of a redevelopment fund, administered by the
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), dedicated to
Metropolitan Area projects.
. Increased, flexible and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup Account for
cleanup of polluted land and the recycling of previously developed land.
III-I Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been and continues to be the primary tool available to
local communities for assisting economic development, redevelopment and housing.
Over time, several statutory changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to
use, while recent property tax reform has resulted in a decreased state financial stake in
city TIF decisions. At the same time that TIF has become more restrictive and difficult to
use, federal and state development and redevelopment resources have been steadily
shrinking. Finally, the 2006 eminent domain reforms will make redevelopment
significantly more expensive in some cases and impossible in others. The cumulative
impact of TIF restrictions, shrinking federal and state redevelopment resources, and
changes to eminent domain laws will restrict a city's ability to address problem properties
and will accelerate the decline of developed cities in the Metropolitan Area. Without
proper tools and resources to address decline, cities will be unable to stop it. At a
minimum, the state should authorize increased flexibility in local TIF decisions.
Metro Cities urges the Legislature to:
. Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain the use ofTIF;
14
2008 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
. 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;
. Expand the flexibility of TIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects;
. Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects;
. Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and if warranted
provide cities with additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls.
. Re-pass legislation from the vetoed 2007 Tax Bill to allow cities to delay the start of
increment for a period of up to four years;
. Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit related TIF districts to address
development and redevelopment issues associated with transit or transfer stations;
. Consider creating an inter-disciplinary TIF team to review local exception TIF
proposals, using established criteria, and make recommendations to the legislature on
their passage.
In addition, for sites that do not meet the restrictive blight and contamination definitions
of the 2006 changes to eminent domain law, the Legislature should explore creating
incentives to encourage owners whose properties meet the blight definitions under M.S.,
Chapter 469, to voluntarily sell their land for redevelopment purposes. Incentives could
include income tax credits, capital gains deferrals or other incentives targeted at property
owners.
Finally, Metro Cities encourages the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more
efficient and streamlined reporting process.
III-J Eminent Domain
Eminent domain law changes made by the 2006 Legislature resulted in a significant
philosophical and legal shift in Minnesota. Whereas prior to 2006, Minnesota law
provided extensive deference to local governments, statutory changes enacted in 2006
provide significantly greater deference to property owners. Eminent domain actions for
traditional public uses such as streets, parks or sewers will cost more. And except for the
most extreme cases of blight or contamination, eminent domain for redevelopment
purposes will be nearly impossible at any cost.
The proper operation and long term economic vitality of our cities is dependent on the
ability of a city, its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent.
Reinvestment and reinvention strategies can occasionally conflict with the priorities of
individual residents or business owners. Eminent domain is a critical tool in the
reinvestment and reinvention process and without it; our cities will be allowed to
deteriorate to unprecedented levels before the public will be able to react. Metro Cities
strongly encourages the Governor and Legislature to revisit the 2006 eminent domain
changes to allow local governments to address blight and contamination problems before
those conditions become financially impossible to address. Specifically, the Legislature
should:
2008 Legislative Policies
15
Housing & Economic Development
. Re-write the blight and contamination definitions and standard of review sections to
reflect the deterioration conditions that currently exist in the Metro Area.
. Allow for the assembly of multiple parcels in order to properly and appropriately
redevelop blighted or contaminated sites.
. Provide for the ability to acquire land from "holdouts" who will now view a publicly
funded project as an opportunity for unethical personal gain at taxpayer expense.
. Review the new enhanced compensation provisions to determine whether individuals
are inappropriately enriched by the process.
. Allow for modifications to the effective date language in the 2006 legislation in order
to accommodate delays in project schedules that are beyond the control of the
acquiring authority.
III-K This Old Housel This Old Shop
Metro Cities supports the reenactment of the "This Old House" law, which allowed
owners of older homestead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting
from repairs or improvements to the home. Metro Cities also supports passage of similar
legislation for owners of older commercial/industrial property that make improvements
that increase the property's market value by at least 12%.
III-L 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 both state and local processes and procedures.
III-M Internet Technology
Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs
and availability of traditional infrastructure-roads, rail, utilities, etc.-the new economy
is increasingly dependent on reliable, redundant, cost effective, high bandwidth
telecommunications capabilities. While the United States was once a leader among
"wired" economies, its position has slipped dramatically as other countries have
facilitated investments in fiber-optic deployment (fiber to the premises), commitments to
true high speed internet capacity (100 mb to I gb) and improved networks (Internet 2).
Recognizing that there is a policy debate regarding the role of government versus private
telecommunications companies in implementing the next generation of internet
capability, bringing about such capabilities is increasingly important to insure that U.S.
companies in general and Minnesota companies in particular can compete effectively in
the global economy.
Metro Cities endorses the activities of the League of Minnesota Cities' Telecom Policy
Task Force as a means to develop a comprehensive strategy to stimulate the
implementation of true high speed, world class, high bandwidth internet capabilities that
are reliable, redundant, cost effective and available to all properties. Metro Cities
16
2008 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
encourages the Legislature to utilize the findings and recommendations of the Task Force
to create legislation that achieves those goals.
IIl-N Metropolitan Council Housing Targets
In advance of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan deadline and in response to projected growth
in the Metro Area, the Metropolitan Council created a methodology to determine how
many affordable housing units would be needed and where those units should go. From
that process, each metro area city was assigned an affordable housing "target". Further,
Met Council Comprehensive Plan guidance instructs cities to guide sufficient land to
accommodate the "targets".
Metro Cities supports the creation of affordable and lifecycle housing in the metro area.
However, providing affordable and lifecycle housing is a shared responsibility between
the private sector and government at all levels, including the federal government, state
government and Metropolitan Council. Land economics, construction costs and
infrastructure needs create barriers to the creation of affordable housing that cities cannot
overcome without assistance.
Therefore, Metro Cities supports a Metropolitan Council affordable housing policy that
recognizes the following tenets:
. The Council's housing policies characterize individual city housing numbers as
"targets", not "goals".
. Cities need significant financial assistance from the federal and state government, as
well as the Metropolitan Council, in order to make progress toward creating
additional affordable housing.
. Improved transportation infrastructure and transit service is required to make progress
toward creating affordable housing.
. Absent significant resources to assist cities, the Met Council will not hold cities
responsible if the "targets" can't be met.
111-0 Mortgage Foreclosure
Sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending practices have resulted in thousands of
mortgage foreclosures throughout the state. Foreclosures are devastating to homeowners
and tenants and can be equally devastating to neighborhoods when the presence of vacant
housing results in reduced property values and increased crime. The additional public
safety and code enforcement costs of managing vacant properties are a financial strain on
cities.
Metro Cities supports the 2007 Legislature's efforts to eliminate predatory lending
practices. In order to reduce foreclosures among current recipients of sub-prime
mortgages, Metro Cities supports additional legislation, including technical changes to
the foreclosure process, increased financial support for mortgage foreclosure prevention
activities, and financial assistance to individuals. As solutions to address vacant housing
2008 Legislative Policies
17
Housing & Economic Development
are developed, Metro Cities urges the Legislature to partner with cities and the private
sector to adopt and implement those solutions.
18
2008 Legislative Policies
~
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
The statutorily-defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of 193 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, Metro Cities supports the continued existence of a metropolitan governance
system for the purpose of:
. Facilitating long-term region-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 and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
. Plan for the orderly and economical development of the metropolitan area by
preparing a comprehensive development guide that includes long-range
comprehensive policy plans for the transportation/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 conformity with
metropolitan system plans.
. Provide specific regional services and administer select regional grant programs as
assigned by state or federal law.
. 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 accompanying 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.
2008 Legislative Policies
19
Metropolitan Agencies
Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to the Metropolitan
Council should be limited to 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 opportunity for local governments and other stakeholders to provide
meaningful input. Council members should understand and be 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 combination 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.
. Metro Cities 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 comparable to the benefit cities receive in return.
. Metro Cities 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 defined 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.
The system plans/statements prepared by the Metropolitan Council for these regional
systems should be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional
investments in order to allow for consideration 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.
20
2008 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
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 information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review,
but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the
Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUP A);
. When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met
Council's systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that includes
a peer review and encourages cities and the Met Council to work in a cooperative and
timely fashion toward the resolution of outstanding issues. Metro Cities opposes the
imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a city's local comprehensive plan
is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans or the plan fails to meet
a statutory deadline when the city has made legitimate efforts to meet Met Council
requirements.
Pursuant to the Land Use Housekeeping Bill passed by the 2007 Legislature, Metro Cities
shall work with the Met Council to establish criteria to define what constitutes "minor" as
it applies to a waiver of the 60-day adjacent community review and comment process for
minor comprehensive plan amendments not on municipal boundaries.
IV-G Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions, which are the
implementation of cities' comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the
approval of the Metropolitan Councilor any other governmental agency. Metro Cities
2008 Legislative Policies
21
Metropolitan Agencies
strongly opposes the creation of any appeals boards with the authority to supersede city
zoning decisions.
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 oflife:
. Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and
development/reinvestment;
. Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit;
. 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 financial 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 work to pursue levels of state and federal
transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit
needs in the metropolitan area.
. The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue
to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives-based manner, and
. Metropolitan counties, including the collar 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 collaboratively
with the twelve adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within
those counties. The region faces environmental, transportation, and land-use issues
that cannot be solved by the seven-county metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an
analysis to determine the impacts of Metropolitan Council's growth management
policies and infrastructure investments on the growth and development of the collar
counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area.
22
2008 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are scheduled to review their comprehensive plans and submit any necessary
updates to the Metropolitan Council in 2008.
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:
( I) 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 planning efforts.
IV-J Natural Resource Protection
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an
inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of
providing 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 communities would be
well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these
resources. Metro Cities urges the state and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide
financial assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources.
. The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI/ A) is
not a regional system nor is it a required component of local 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 provide 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 of local units of government.
2008 Legislative Policies
23
Metropolitan Agencies
IV-K Federal Clean Water Mandates
Recent legal action related to impaired waters poses a significant threat to the
development and redevelopment interests of the Twin Cities. However, because the
Environmental Protection Agency measures compliance on a statewide basis, and
because watersheds and river basins transcend political boundaries, 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
Metropolitan Area cities, to arrive at solutions to current legal challenges associated with
the federal Clean Water Act that are both financially and environmentally appropriate for
cities, the region and the state.
IV-L Inflow and Infiltration (III)
The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Plan has established an III
surcharge beginning in 2007 on cities that are determined to be contributing unacceptable
amounts of clear water to the MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently 44 cities
have been identified as excessive III contributors. This number is subject to change,
depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area could be affected. Metro
Cities recognizes 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. Metro Cities'
policies supported the following criteria for a surcharge program:
+ A data supported definition of "excessive III" that includes data over a five year
period with periodic updates that reflect municipal mitigation efforts;
+ Access to all 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.
The surcharge program provides for a deferral of III surcharges over 25% of
municipal wastewater charges and additional metering ofMCES interceptors. Metro
Cities will continue to monitor the surcharge program, and encourages the
Metropolitan Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area III
mitigation through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar
legislation.
24
2008 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
Further, Metro Cities supports state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area
cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal
wastewater collection systems.
IV-M Water Supply
The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out planning activities
to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. The Water Supply Advisory
Committee, whose members include five municipal officials, began its work in January
2006. Its work includes analyzing technical water supply/use data, the development of a
master metro area water supply plan, recommendations for clarifying roles of local,
regional and state governments and streamlining and consolidating approval processes,
and recommendations for funding future planning and capital investments.
The advisory committee completed Phase I of its work in December 2006, and submitted
a report to the Legislature in January, 2007. Metro Cities supports the process outlined
for phase II of the committee's work, including the development of a master metro area
water supply plan, with the addition of a technical advisory group that includes municipal
expertise to assist in providing information to the advisory committee.
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. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council activities associated with
clarifying local, regional and state water supply roles. Metro Cities encourages the
Metropolitan Council to consider the inter-relationships of wastewater treatment, storm
water management and water supply. Metro Cities also supports analytical work that will
help streamline and consolidate the myriad and often conflicting water supply permitting
processes. Metro Cities further supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to
assist with municipal water supply projects. However, Metro Cities opposes the insertion
of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena.
Metro Cities 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 Service Availability Charge (SAC)
The Met Council proposed changes to its SAC program in 2005. The original proposal
would have disallowed the use of 'grandfathered (pre 1973) SAC credits. Metro Cities
opposed that change, and convened a work group to review the proposals and make
recommendations. As a result of those discussions and subsequent meetings with MCES
staff, the Metropolitan Council adopted a 'no net credit' proposal. Under this proposal,
when a redeveloping property's new use requires lower wastewater capacity than what
was used in the prior seven years, SAC credits are limited to the amount needed on the
2008 Legislative Policies
25
Metropolitan Agencies
site for the new use. A property developing at the same or lesser wastewater demand will
not incur SAC nor get credits.
Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, simplification and lower
rates. Under a no-net-credit structure, Metro Cities supports a baseline 'look back' of
seven years, 10 years for phased developments and longer time lines to be decided on a
case by case basis for redevelopment projects that involve extenuating circumstances.
Metro Cities also supports a start date of 20 1 0 to allow cities adequate time to determine
and use existing SAC credits.
IV-O Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state
parks. Therefore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition,
development and improvement of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of
the operating budget for regional parks.
IV-P Livable Communities
/'
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and
provides a voluntary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development,
brown field clean up and mixed-use, transit-friendly development and redevelopment.
Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely
accepted and is fully utilized by local communities.
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements 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.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the Livable Communities Demonstration
Account Program to reflect the linkages among the LCDA and municipal objectives and
goals and Met Council systems objectives and goals. Metro Cities also supports statutory
changes to assure that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the LCDA
program.
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.
IV-Q Affordable Housing Need
Metro Cities recognizes and supports the role of the Metropolitan Council, under the
Land Use Planning Act, to prepare and adopt guidelines to assist local government units
26
2008 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
with the provisions of the Land Use Planning Act, including the responsibility for
planning for affordable housing.
In forecasting affordable housing need in the metro area, and determining each
community's share of the regional need, the Council must recognize both the limited
opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council should partner with cities to
facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial assistance and
advocating for additional resources.
Metro Cities opposes sanctions or penalties if a city fails to meet its share of affordable
housing need due to a lack of available resources.
IV-R Density
Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy that bases density
projections on actual development patterns, is flexible, and accommodates cities at
various development stages. Any Met Council density policy must take into account the
impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities.
2008 Legislative Policies
27
Metropolitan Agencies
28
2008 Legislative Policies
Transportation (V)
V-A Transportation and Transit Funding
Metro Cities 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 transportation
solutions may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem of congestion relief can be
addressed.
Metro Cities supports full funding of transportation and transit needs based on projected
growth over the next twenty-five years. The metro area is predicted to grow by one
million people by 2030, with funding needs for transportation and transit of over one
billion dollars ($1 billion) per year for the next fifteen years. Metro Cities believes it is
important to join a coalition of organizations to better address the transportation financing
needs of the entire state and will be cooperating with groups with the same mission.
For the purpose of accelerating road and transit construction projects in the metro area,
Metro Cities supports the following list of revenue raising options in any combination,
provided there is no corresponding offset to negate any actual new revenue, 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
. Wheelage Tax
. Street Utility Fee
. Road Access Fee
. Sales Tax
Metro Cities supports the statutory dedication of MVST on leased vehicles to be
dedicated 100% to transportation and transit. Metro Cities will oppose any reduction in
existing dollars to fund transportation as a result of the dedication of MVST dollars for
transportation purposes. All non-transportation programs should be funded from sources
other than currently dedicated transportation funds.
2008 Legislative Policies
29
Transportation
V-B Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that
serves both commuters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed
of a mix of HOV lanes, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways,
light rail transit and commuter rail corridors 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. Metro Cities 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 metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is 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, and to allocate costs so that new growth pays its fair share, the
Legislature should authorize cities to establish, at their option, similar to park dedication
fees, a road development access charge to be collected at the time that subdivisions are
approved and/or at the time building permits are issued.
V -E Street Utility
Metro Cities supports legislation authorizing 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
Metro Cities supports jurisdictional reassignment or turn back of roads on a phased basis
using functional classifications and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding
mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continued maintenance.
30
2008 Legislative Policies
Transportation
Metro Cities does not support the wholesale turnback of county roads without the total
cost being reimbursed to the city in a timely manner.
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to
absorb the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing
municipal turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. Metro Cities
supports, through the state bonding process, additional funds for local roads and bridges.
Additional funding would begin to ease the burden municipalities are bearing due to the
increase cost of road maintenance.
Metro Cities supports additional funding for municipalities that are assuming the role of
maintenance and upkeep on city streets that 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 abrogated 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
Metro Cities supports continuation ofthe Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), with a
majority of locally elected officials as members and participating in the process. The
TAB was developed to meet federal requirements, designating the Metropolitan Council
as the organization that is responsible for a continuous, comprehensive and cooperative
(3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area
projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the
21 st Century (TEA21) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
V-H Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws
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.
V-I Airport Noise Mitigation
Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize
the impacts of Metropolitan Airports 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 impacted cities and their residents. The MAC and the 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. Furthermore,
unless mitigation funding is provided, Metro Cities opposes any legislation that requires a
property owner to disclose those properties that lie within 64-60 DNL noise contours.
2008 Legislative Policies
31
Transportation
Metro Cities supports a change to the governance structure of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC). The MAC currently consists of 15 members, thirteen of whom are
appointed by the Governor, and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul or their
designees. Although the MAC is statutorily charged to "reflect fairly the various regions
and interests affected by the airport system," only two of the communities most affected
by the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) have direct representation on the
commission and are given the opportunity to select their district's representative.
Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airport impacted
communities are significantly impacted by noise, traffic, and other numerous expansion-
related issues, Metro Cities supports the broad goal of providing MSP-impacted
communities greater representation on the MAC.
V-J Cities Under 5,000 Population
Cities under 5,000 in population do not directly receive any non-property tax funds for
collector and arterial streets. 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 program 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 county municipal accounts and/or state general
funds.
V-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
Because the Legislature and Governor have yet to agree on long term transportation
funding, more of the burden for transportation costs is being borne by local units of
government. In response to a lack of state level funding, some counties are requiring
municipalities to participate in cost sharing to build county roads. When the alternative is
not building or maintaining roads, cities bear not only the costs of their local systems but
also pay upward of fifty percent of county road projects. Metro Cities supports special or
additional funding for cities that have burdens of additional cost participation in county
road projects.
Although only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly
50% of the vehicle miles traveled. Metro counties receive less then 20% of the CSAH
distribution based on the current formula. This formula should be updated to more fairly
reflect current needs.
Metro Cities 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.
32
2008 Legislative Policies
Transportation
V-L MunicipallnputlConsent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Minnesota Statutes direct the MN Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to submit
detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior to bid
letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizenlbusiness/municipal input. If
MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, it 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.
Metro Cities opposes any changes to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to
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 a
city for appropriate project access and alignment, and it would make the public hearing
and appeal process meaningless.
Metro Cities 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.
V -M Plat Authority
Metro Cities supports current law granting counties review and comment authority for
access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. Metro Cities opposes any
statutory change that would grant the county veto power or that would shorten the 120-
day review and permit process time.
V-N City Speed Limit Control
Metro Cities supports a reduction in the state-wide default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph
on local residential roads. Metro Cities supports design standards that result in slower
speeds on local roads. In the event of a uniform speed limit reduction, Metro Cities
supports increased state funding for education and enforcement.
V-O Speed Limits Surrounding City Parks and Schools
At cities' or counties' discretion, Metro Cities supports a year round reduction of speed
limits within 500 feet of any city or county parks as well as schools.
V-P MnDOT Maintenance Budget
The Minnesota Department of Transportation's maintenance budget has been reduced in
recent years due to a lack of state funding and as a result state right of ways, roadways,
and state owned parcels are not being adequately maintained. As a result, municipalities
are spending local dollars maintaining these properties, many of which are deteriorating
at an accelerated rate. Metro Cities supports fully funding MnDOT's maintenance
2008 Legislative Policies
33
Transportation
budget to relieve the financial burden on local units of government and to assure that
state highways do not deteriorate prematurely.
34
2008 Legislative Policies
lit
Committee Rosters (VI)
Housing & Economic Development
Anne Norris (Chair), City Manager, Crystal
Bonnie Balach, Consultant, Minneapolis
Karen Barton, Comm. Dev. Dir., Arden Hills
Mike Bourke, Councilmember, Blaine
Tom Daniel, Mgr. Econ. Dev., Minneapolis
Tami Diehm, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Rick Getschow, City Manager, Hopkins
Bryan Hartman, Program Manager, Bloomington
Brian Heck, Administrator, Lauderdale
Jon Hohenstein, Comm. Dev. Dir., Eagan
Fran Holmes, Counci1member, Arden Hills
R. Michael Leek, Comm. Dev. Dir., Shakopee
Dean Lotter, City Manager, New Brighton
Bruce Nordquist, Comm. Dev. Dir., Apple Valley
Tammy Omdal, Deputy City Manager/CFO, Burnsville
Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Dayton
Terence Quigley, Councilmember, Shoreview
Ron Rankin, Comm. Dev. Dir., Minnetonka
Robert Schreier, Dir. of Commun. Dev., Brooklyn Park
Bob Streetar, Comm. Dev. Dir., Columbia Heights
Craig Waldron, Administrator, Oakdale
Mike Wilhelmi, Dir. of Intergovernmental Relations, St. Paul
Pierre Willette, Government Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Liz Workman, Councilmember, Burnsville
Metropolitan Agencies
Craig Dawson (Chair), Admin-Clerk, Shorewood
Susan Arntz, Administrator, Waconia
David Beaudet, Mayor, Oak Park Heights
Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville
Karen Divina, Asst. City Manager/HR Dir.
Cheryl Fischer, Mayor, Minnetrista
Elizabeth Glidden, Councilmember, Minneapolis
2008 Legislative Policies
35
Committee Rosters
Torn Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley
Brian Heck, Administrator, Lauderdale
Wes Hovland, Councilmember, Blaine
Susan Hoyt, Administrator, Lake Elmo
Schawn Johnson, Asst. to the City Manager, New Brighton
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
Larry Lee, Comm. Dev. Dir., Bloomington
Thomas Link, Comm. Dev. Dir., Inver Grove Heights
Linda Loomis, Mayor, Golden Valley
Terry Schneider, Councilrnember, Minnetonka
Wendy Underwood, Govt. Relations Rep., St. Paul
Pierre Willette, Govt. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Michelle Wolfe, Administrator, Arden Hills
Ron Wood, City Manager, Blaine
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Marcia Glick (Chair), City Manager, Robbinsdale
Clark Arneson, Asst. City Manager, Bloomington
Patrick Born, Chief Financial Officer, Minneapolis
Torn Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Lori Economy-Scholler, Chief Financial Officer, Bloomington
Jerry Faust, Mayor, St. Anthony Village
Walt Fehst, City Manager, Columbia Heights
Susan Iverson, Finance Dir./Treas., Arden Hills
Dan Kealey, Councilrnember, Burnsville
Torn Lawell, Administrator, Apple Valley
Dean Lotter, City Manager, New Brighton
Linda Masica, Councilmember, Edina
Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights
Justin Miller, Administrator, Falcon Heights
Bruce Nawrocki, Councilrnember, Columbia Heights
Scott Neilson, Administrator, Mahtomedi
Tammy Omdal, Deputy City Manager/CFO, Burnsville
Calvin Portner, Asst. City Manager, Brooklyn Park
Richard Pribyl, Finance Dir.- Treas., Fridley
Don Rambow, Finance Dir., White Bear Lake
Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis
Robin Roland, Finance Dir., Farmington
Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Cottage Grove
Danna Elling Schultz, Councilmember, Hastings
Steve Sinell, City Assessor, Eden Prairie
Matt Smith, Dir. Office of Financial Services, St. Paul
Erin Stwora, Asst. to the City Administrator, Dayton
Mike Wilhelrni, Dir. of Govt. Relations., St. Paul
36
2008 Legislative Policies
Committee Rosters
Dick Woodruff, Councilmember, Shorewood
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
Transportation & General Government
Dave Osberg (Chair), Administrator, Hastings
Doug Anderson, Mayor, Dayton
Janis Callison, Mayor, Minnetonka
Pam Dmytrenko, Asst. To City Manager, Richfield
Karen Divina, Asst. City Manager/HR Dir., West St. Paul
Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Bloomington
Matt Fulton, City Manager, Coon Rapids
Mike Funk, Administrator, Minnetrista
Randy Gilbert, Mayor, Long Lake
Dan Gustafson, Councilmember, Burnsville
Chuck Haas, Councilmember, Hugo
Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
William Hargis, Mayor, Woodbury
Tom Harmening, City Manager, St. Louis Park
Sandy Hewitt, Councilmember, Plymouth
Greg Hoag, Public Works Dir., Arden Hills
Brenda Holden, Councilmember, Arden Hills
Susan Hoyt, Administrator, Lake Elmo
Gordon Hughes, City Manager, Edina
Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence
Schawn Johnson, Asst. to the City Manager, New Brighton
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
R. Michael Leek, Comm. Develop. Dir, Shakopee
Robert Lilligren, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Linda Loomis, Mayor, Golden Valley
John Maczko, City Engineer, St. Paul
Mary McComber, Counci1member, Oak Park Heights
Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shakopee
Mike Mornson, City Manager, St. Anthony Village
Veid Muiznieks, Chief of Police, Newport
Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Dayton
Bud Osmundson, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer, Burnsville
Dave Pokorney, Manager, Chaska
Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake
Danna Elling Schultz, Councilmember, Hastings
Ellsworth Stein, Airport ReI. Commission, Mendota Heights
Dick Swanson, Councilmember, Blaine
John Sweeney, Mayor, Maple Plain
Wendy Underwood, Government Relations Rep., St. Paul
Karen Lowery Wagner, Government Relations, Minneapolis
Jon Wertjes, Director of Transportation Services, Minneapolis
2008 Legislative Policies
37
Committee Rosters
Ady Wickstrom, Counci1member, Shoreview
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
38
2008 Legislative Policies