HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.D.4. Adoption of Metro Cities Draft legislative Policy Positions General Business 4. D. 4.
SH/\KOn t'
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill,City Administrator
DATE: 11/05/2014
SUBJECT: Adoption of Metro Cities Draft Legislative Policy Positions(F)
Action Sought
The Council should consider and adopt the Metropolitan Cities draft legislative policies as recommended by the
policy adoption study committees.
Background
Metro Cities(formerly the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities)is an association of more than 90 Twin
Cities-area cities,which monitors and advocates for legislation that will benefit to cities and their
stakeholders,with the State Legislature and the Metropolitan Council. Shakopee has been a member for many years.
Annually,four Metro Cities "Policy Study Committees" are formed and meet. Membership on the committees is
made up of a mix of elected and appointed officials,and Shakopee representatives are eligible to be on the review
committees. The Committees review Metro Cities positions in the following areas:
•Municipal Revenue and Taxation
•General Government
•Housing and Economic Development
•Metropolitan Agencies
•Transportation
While the policies do not vary much from year to year,they are reviewed annually for appropriateness. Obsolete
ones are withdrawn,and other legislative policies are formulated so that they may be consistent with recently
introduced legislation.
At its annual meeting on Thursday,November 13,the draft policies will be considered for adoption. Each city
attending is asked to designate a voting delegate. This year,we have two Council Members attending(Councilors
Mocol and Luce). I suggest that those two determine which of them will cast Shakopee's vote.
City Councils typically vote to endorse the policies as presented. However,if there is a disagreement on an
individual policy,Metro Cities policy adoption by-laws require that delegates from a total of five cities must agree
to request discussion and a vote on that particular subject. If there are not five Cities who request to have it
"pulled",the policy cannot be discussed from the floor.
Therefore,unless the majority of the Shakopee Council disagrees with a particular policy,I would suggest that any
dissenting ideas or concerns be submitted electronically to the Metro Cities individually as a individual opinion.
Recommendation
While there are policies with which Shakopee may not be in total agreement,as a whole,they are good.
Therefore,I recommend that the Metro Cities policies as proposed in the attached draft be approved for adoption.
Budget Impact
None.
Relationship To Visioning
This supports Goal F, "Housekeeping."
Requested Action
If Council concurs,it should,vote to have the Shakopee Council delegate vote to endorse the draft 2015 legislative
policies of the Metro Cities.
Attachments: Metro Cities Draft Legislative Policies 2015
GETRO CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
October 10,2014
TO: City Managers/Administrators
FROM: Patricia Nauman, Executive Direc
RE: Draft 2015 Legislative Policies and Policy Adoption Meeting
Enclosed are two copies of Metro Cities' draft 2015 legislative policies for your city's review
and consideration. The policies are also on-line at www.metrocitiesmn.org. These policy
recommendations were developed by over 100 city officials who participated in our policy
development process, and have been approved by the Metro Cities Board of Directors. These
policies will be considered and adopted by Metro Cities' full membership at our Annual
Policy Adoption Meeting on Thursday,November 13th. Details of this meeting are enclosed.
Please be sure to attend the policy adoption meeting. Each city is responsible to designate a
voting delegate who will represent their city's position on the policies. Delegates will be asked
to identify themselves at the registration/check-in table.
Metro Cities' protocol for adoption of policies is as follows:
• One vote per member city, and one additional vote for each 50,000 population above
the initial +50,000
• Metro Cities' President will distinguish questions of clarification or explanation and
questions that could result in an amendment of a policy
• Policy Committee Chairs will present a summary of the policies and amendments
• Individual policies can be opened for discussion if five city delegates request a discussion
• Discussion on individual policies will be allowed and limited to 10 minutes
• If there is a motion to amend a policy, the President will honor the motion if five or more
delegates request a vote by municipality
• Any individual requesting a vote will be asked to verify their delegate status
• If five delegates request a vote, a vote will be taken by municipality per our by-laws
• If there is no discussion, or following any individual votes on policies, the President will
entertain a motion for adoption of the entire policy section
If you have any questions, please contact Laurie Jennings at 651-215-4000 or
Laurie @MetroCitiesMN.org for more information.
We hope to see you on November 13th!
145 University Ave W• St. Paul,MN 55103-2044 • Phone(651)215-4000 • Fax (651)281-1299 • www.MetroCitiesMN.org
OAP��
METRO
CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Legislative Policies
January 2015
Metro Cities
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Ave. W.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000
Website: www.MetroCitiesMN.org Fax: (651) 281-1299 Twitter:@MetroCitiesMN
Ms. Patricia Nauman Mr. Todd Olson Mr. Charlie Vander Aarde Ms.Laurie Jennings
Executive Director Gov't Relations Specialist Gov't Relations Specialist Office Manager
(651)215-4002 (651)215-4003 (651)215-4001 (651)215-4004
Patricia@MetroCitiesMN.org Todd @,MetroCitiesMN.org Charlie @MetroCitiesMN.org Laurie(a,MetroCitiesMN.org
Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue & Taxation 1
1-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship 1
1-B Revenue Diversification 2
1-C Levy Limits 2
1-D Restrictions on Local Government Budgets 2
1-E Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements 2
1-F Local Government Aid (LGA) 3
1-G State Property Tax Relief Programs 3
1-I-I Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value 4
1-I Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program 4
1-J Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution 4
1-K Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits 5
1-L State Property Tax 5
1-M Class Rate Tax System 5
1-N Regional Facility Host Communities 6
1-0 Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases 6
1-P City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance 6
1-Q Public Employees' Retirement Association(PERA) 6
1-R State Program Revenue Sources 7
1-S Post-Employment Benefits 7
1-T Health Care Insurance Programs 7
1-U State Budget Stability 8
1-V Online Travel Companies and Taxes 8
1-W Taxation of Electronic Commerce 8
1-X Payments for Services to Tax Exempt Property 8
1-Y Proceeds from Tax Forfeited Property 8
General Government 11
2-A Mandates, Zoning& Local Authority 11
2-B City Enterprise Activities 11
2-C Firearms on City Property 11
2-D 911 Telephone Tax 12
2015 Legislative Policies
Table of Contents
2-E 800 MHz Radio System 12
2-F Building Codes 12
2-G Administrative Fines 13
2-H Residential Care Facilities 13
2-I Annexation 14
2-J Housing Ordinance Enforcement 14
2-K Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact 15
2-L Dangerous Substance Regulation 15
2-M Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority 15
2-N Organized Waste Collection 15
2-0 Election Administration Costs 16
2-P Utility Franchise Fees, Accountability and Cost Transparency 16
2-Q Water Supply 17
Housing & Economic Development 19
Policies 3-A to 3-I: Introduction 19
3-A City Role in Housing 19
3-B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing 20
3-C Inclusionary Housing 20
3-D Metropolitan Council Role in Housing 20
3-E Allocation of Affordable Housing Need 22
3-F Housing Performance Scores 23
3-G State Role in Housing 24
3-H Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing 25
3-I Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk 26
3-J Economic Development, Redevelopment and Workforce Readiness 27
3-J (1) Economic Development 27
3-J (2) Redevelopment 28
3-J (3) Workforce Readiness 29
3-K Tax Increment Financing 30
3-L Eminent Domain 32
3-M Community Reinvestment 33
3-N Business Incentives Policy 33
3-0 Broadband Technology 33
3-P City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development 34
ii 2015 Legislative Policies
Table of Contents
3-Q Impaired Waters 34
Metropolitan Agencies 37
4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance 37
4-B Regional Governance Structure 38
4-C Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council 38
4-D Oversight of Metropolitan Council 38
4-E Funding Regional Services 39
4-F Regional Systems 39
4-G Regional Water Supply Planning 40
4-H Review of Local Comprehensive Plans 41
4-I Comprehensive Planning Process 41
4-J Comprehensive Planning Schedule 42
4-K Local Zoning Authority 42
4-L Regional Growth 42
4-M Natural Resource Protection 44
4-N Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) 45
4-0 Service Availability Charge (SAC) 45
4-P Funding Regional Parks & Open Space 46
4-Q Livable Communities 46
4-R Density 47
Transportation 49
5-A Transportation Funding 49
5-B Regional Transit System 49
5-C Transit Financing 51
5-D Street Improvement Districts 51
5-E Highway Turnbacks & Funding 52
5-F "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role 52
5-G Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws 52
5-H Airport Noise Mitigation 52
5-I Cities Under 5,000 Population 53
5-J County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula 53
5-K Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads 54
5-L Plat Authority 54
2015 Legislative Policies iii
Table of Contents
5-M City Speed Limit Control 54
5-N MnDOT Maintenance Budget 55
5-0 Transit Taxing District 55
5-P Complete Streets 55
Committee Rosters 57
Housing& Economic Development 57
Metropolitan Agencies 58
Municipal Revenue &Taxation 59
Transportation& General Government 60
iv 2015 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue &
° D Taxation
1-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship
Metro Cities supports a strong state and local fiscal relationship that emphasizes
adequacy, equitability and accountability for public resources, and effective
communication among the state, its cities, and the public about the roles and
responsibilities of state and local governments. Services provided by cities have
traditionally been funded through a combination of property taxes, fees/charges and state
aids. Increasingly, cities are bearing more of the responsibility for the costs for services
that have historically been the responsibility of the state.
Metro Cities supports a state and local fiscal relationship that affirms the goal of all
citizens receiving adequate levels of basic public services at relatively similar levels
of taxation, that compensates cities for service costs created by non-taxpaying users
of city services, that reduces tax burden disparities among communities, and that
assists cities with high needs and relatively low fiscal capacities.
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, and the use of dedicated funds that meet specific local government
needs. Metro Cities opposes the diversion of such dedicated funds to help balance
state budgets;
• 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;
• Adequate and timely notification regarding new legislative programs or modifications
to existing state programs or policies to allow cities sufficient time to plan for
implementation; and
2015 Legislative Policies 1
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
• Metro Cities supports the concept of performance measuring, but opposes using state
established local performance measurements to determine the allocation of state aids
to local governments, or to deny local governments the authority to establish their
own budgets and levies, as such measurements do not well account for varying local
needs and circumstances.
1-B Revenue Diversification
Metro Cities supports a balanced and diversified revenue system that acknowledges
the diversity in city characteristics, needs and revenue capacities, and allows for
greater stability in revenues. A diminishment in state aids creates severe challenges for
many cities in the provision of public services and increased reliance on the property tax.
Metro Cities supports greater access to other tax and revenue sources, and statutory
modifications that allow cities to impose a local option sales tax for public
improvements,without the need for special legislation.
Metro Cities supports having local sales tax referendums conducted at a general or
special election. The Legislature should recognize the equity considerations involved
with local sales taxes, and continue to provide aids to cities that have high needs,
overburdens and/or low fiscal capacity.
1-C Levy Limits
Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits. Levy limits undermine local budgeting
processes, planned growth, and the relationship between locally elected officials and
their residents by allowing the state to decide the appropriate level of local taxation
and services, despite varying local conditions and circumstances.
1-D Restrictions on Local Government Budgets
Metro Cities 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.
1-E Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements
State laws require cities to prepare and submit or publish numerous budget and financial
reports. These requirements often add significant costs to cities, and many requirements
often result in duplication. Any additional reporting requirements should be weighed to
balance the need for additional information with the costs to cities of compiling and
submitting this information. In light of the numerous existing reporting requirements,
Metro Cities supports reducing the number of mandated reporting requirements.
2 2015 Legislative Policies
•
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
1-F Local Government Aid (LGA)
The LGA program, originally enacted in 1971,was created with the goals of providing
property tax relief and ensuring a sufficient level of revenues for local government needs.
Metro Cities supports Local Government Aid (LGA), the only form of general purpose
state aid to Minnesota cities, as a means of ensuring that all cities are able to provide
basic public services without over-burdening the property tax.
Metro Cities' policies recognize that our state's prosperity and vitality depend
significantly upon the strength of the metropolitan region. A functional and equitable
LGA program works to assure that all cities can provide and fund local public services
and infrastructure, in order to position our state and metropolitan region for strong
economic growth.
To ensure an adequate appropriation level for the program, Metro Cities supports
increasing the LGA appropriation to at least its 2003 funding level, at which time
the appropriation was originally set by the Legislature at$586.8 million.
Metro Cities supports the Local Government Aid formula changes and
appropriation increases of$90 million enacted during the 2013 and 2014 legislative
sessions, bringing the overall appropriation to $516.9 million. The program
modifications more adequately capture the varying needs and circumstances of
cities across the state and make the program more equitable, functional and
transparent.
Metro Cities also supports adjusting the LGA appropriation for inflation and
population growth in future years, to assure that the program can continue to meet
cities' needs and move toward a more geographically equitable distribution as
intended under the new structure.
Metro Cities strongly opposes reductions of Local Government Aid for the purpose
of balancing state budget deficits and opposes singling out specific communities for
local aid reductions. Metro Cities also opposes freezes to LGA,which increase
volatility in the distribution of LGA.
1-G State Property Tax Relief Programs
Metro Cities supports state funded property tax relief programs that are paid
directly to homestead property taxpayers such as the circuit breaker and enhanced
targeting for special circumstances and supported the expansion of these programs
in 2013 and 2014. Metro Cities supports an analysis of the state's property tax relief
programs to determine their effectiveness and equity in providing property tax
relief to individuals and families across the state.
Metro Cities supports the use of the Department of Revenue's "Voss" database to
link income and property values, and the consideration of income relative to
2015 Legislative Policies 3
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
property taxes paid in determining eligibility for state property tax relief programs.
Updates to the database should occur in a timely manner and data reviewed
periodically to ensure the database's accuracy and usefulness.
1-H Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value
Metro Cities strongly opposes the use of artificial limits in valuing property at
market for taxation purposes, since such limitations shift tax burdens to other
classes of property and create disparities between properties of equal value.
1-I Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program
The Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program (MVHE)provides property tax relief
to qualifying homesteads, through reductions in property tax values, which shifts
property taxes within jurisdictions. The MVHC replaced a former Market Value
Homestead Credit Program, which provided credits on local government tax bills to
qualifying properties, with reimbursements provided by the state to local governments.
Metro Cities opposes restoration of the former Market Value Homestead Credit, as
reimbursements to local governments were inconsistent, and encourages elimination
of the exclusion program, as the program shifts taxes onto other property classes
and further complicates the property tax system.
1-J Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
The Twin Cities Area Fiscal Disparities Program, enacted in 1971, was created for the
purposes of:
• providing a way for local governments to share in the resources generated by the
growth of the metropolitan area without removing existing resources;
• promoting orderly development of the region by reducing the impact of fiscal
considerations on the location of business and infrastructure;
• establishing incentives for all parts of the area to work for the growth of the area as a
whole;
• helping communities at various stages of development; and
• encouraging protection of the environment by reducing the impact of fiscal
considerations to ensure protection of parks, open space and wetlands.
Metro Cities supports the Fiscal Disparities Program. Metro Cities opposes any
diversion from the fiscal disparities pool to fund specific programs or projects, as
this would contradict the purposes of the program.
Metro Cities recognizes that laws enacted in the 2013 legislative session to assist the
expansion for the Mall of America were not in accordance with Metro Cities' legislative
policy on fiscal disparities. This new law should not serve as a precedent for future
4 2015 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
legislative action with respect to funding specific projects or programs out of the fiscal
disparities pool.
Legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program should only be
considered within a framework of comprehensive reform efforts of the state's property
tax, aids and credits system. Any proposed legislation that would modify or impact the
fiscal disparities program must be evaluated utilizing the criteria of fairness, equity,
stability, transparency and coherence in the treatment of cities and taxpayers across the
metropolitan region, and must continue to serve the program's intended purposes.
Further studies or task forces to consider modifications to the fiscal disparities program
must include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives.
1-K 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.
1-L State Property Tax
The state levies a 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 the state-levied property tax to additional classes of property.
In the interest of increasing transparency around this tax,Metro Cities supports
efforts to have the state provide information on the property tax statement
regarding the state property tax. Metro Cities opposes exempting specific classes of
property under the tax as such exemptions shift the costs of the tax onto other
classes of property.
1-M 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.
2015 Legislative Policies 5
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
1-N Regional Facility Host Communities
Municipalities hosting regional facilities (such as utilities, landfills or aggregate mining)
incur costs and community impacts such as environmental damage or lost economic
development opportunities. Communities should be compensated for the impacts of these
facilities, which provide benefits to the region and state. Metro Cities supports
legislative efforts to offset the negative impacts of these facilities and activities on
host communities. Metro Cities would prefer that cities and townships be allowed to
collect a host fee that may be adjusted when state decisions impact those fees.
1-0 Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
Metro Cities supports the reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for purchases of
goods and services made by cities.
To ensure that citizens receive the full benefit of this exemption, the law should treat
purchases of all local government units the same, including purchases made by special
taxing districts,joint powers entities, or any other agency or instrumentality of local
government.
Metro Cities supports granting an extension of the motor vehicle sales tax
exemption to all municipal vehicles that are used for general city functions and are
provided by governmental entities. Currently, only certain vehicles, including road
maintenance vehicles purchased by townships, and municipal fire trucks and police
vehicles not registered for use on public roads, are exempt from the MVST.
Metro Cities supports simplifying the process around the exemption for
construction materials,which is currently complex and cost ineffective, or
converting the process to a refund program.
1-P 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.
1-Q Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA)
Metro Cities supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary
contribution increases and a 60% employer/40% employee split for the PERA
Police and Fire Plan. 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
6 2015 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
notice of these increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting
purposes.
Metro Cities opposes benefit improvements for active employees or retirees until the
financial health of the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plan are
restored.
Metro Cities supports modifications to help align PERA contributions and costs,
and reduce the need for additional contribution increases, including a modification
of PERA eligibility guidelines to account for temporary, seasonal and part-time
employment situations,the use of pro-rated service credit and a comprehensive
review of exclusions to simplify eligibility guidelines. Further employer contribution
rate increases should be avoided until other cost alignment mechanisms are
considered.
1-R State Program Revenue Sources
Metro Cities opposes any attempt by the state to finance programs of statewide
value and significance with local revenue sources such as municipal utilities or
property tax mechanisms. These local revenue sources are created to finance local
government services. Statewide programs, such as the Clean Water Legacy Act, serve
important state goals and objectives, and should be financed through traditional state
revenue sources such as the income or sales tax.
1-S Post-Employment Benefits
Metro Cities supports 2008 statutory changes that allow 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.
1-T Health Care Insurance Programs
Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs, but
opposes actions that undermine local flexibility to manage rising insurance costs.
Metro Cities encourages a full examination of the rising costs of health care and the
impacts on city employers and employees. Metro Cities also supports a study of the
fiscal impacts to both cities and retirees of pooling retirees separately from active
employees.
2015 Legislative Policies 7
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
1-U State Budget Stability
Metro Cities strongly supports a state revenue system that provides for stability,
flexibility and adequacy in the system, reduces the volatility of state revenues and
improves the long term balance of state revenues and expenditures. Metro Cities
supports a statutory budget reserve minimum that is adequate to manage risks and
fluctuations in the state's tax system and a cash flow reserve account of sufficient
size so that the state can avoid short term borrowing to manage cash flow
fluctuations.
Metro Cities also supports an examination of the property tax system and the
relationships between state and local tax bases,with an emphasis on state budget
cuts and their impact on property taxes. State budget deficits must be balanced with
statewide sources and must not further reduce funding for property tax relief programs
and aids to local governments that result in local governments bearing more
responsibility for the costs of services that belong to the state.
1-V Online Travel Companies and Taxes
Metro Cities opposes legislation that allows online travel companies a tax exemption
that terminates obligations to pay hotel taxes to state and local governments, or
otherwise restricts legal actions by states and localities.
1-W Taxation of Electronic Commerce
Metro Cities supports efforts to develop streamlined sales and use tax system to
simplify sales and use tax collection and administration by retailers and states.
Metro Cities supports policies that encourage remote retailers to collect and remit
state sales taxes in states that are complying with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
Agreement.
1-X Payments for Services to Tax Exempt Property
Metro Cities supports city authority to collect payments from tax exempt property
owners to cover the costs of services to those entities, similar to statutory authority
for special assessments. Metro Cities opposes legislation that would exempt non-
profit entities from paying user fees and service charges.
1-Y Proceeds from Tax Forfeited Property
Metro Cities supports changes to state laws governing the proceeds around tax
forfeited properties. Currently, counties are allowed to recover administrative costs
related to a property before other allocations are made and the law allows for the county
to recoup a percentage of assessment costs once administrative costs are allocated. The
8 2015 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
result is often a very low allocation and usually insufficient level of proceeds available
for covering special assessments, unpaid taxes and fees to cities. The current process also
does not require the repayment of unpaid utility charges or building and development
fees.
Metro Cities supports changes to state statutes that balances repayment of unpaid
taxes and assessments, utility charges and other fees and that more equitably
allocates the distribution of proceeds between counties and cities.
2015 Legislative Policies 9
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
10 2015 Legislative Policies
pl General Government
2-A Mandates, Zoning & Local Authority
Metro Cities opposes statutory changes that erode local authority or create
additional mandates that add to local costs without a corresponding state
appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates potentially increase
property taxes, which impedes cities' ability to fund traditional service needs.
Metro Cities believes that zoning decisions should be made at the local level. Metro
Cities supports legislation that gives local officials greater authority and discretion
to approve variances in order to allow flexibility in responding to land use needs of
their own community.
Metro Cities also supports legislation to remove barriers to uniform zoning
ordinance amendment processes for all cities, regardless of city size classification.
To allow for greater collaboration and flexibility in providing local services, Metro Cities
encourages the removal of barriers or hurdles to cooperation and coordination between
cities and other units of government or entities. Metro Cities supports local decision-
making authority.
2-B City Enterprise Activities
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.
Metro Cities supports cities having authority to establish city enterprise operations
in response to community needs, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure
residents' quality of life.
2-C Firearms on City Property
Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns and other weapons 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, city
sidewalks or on locally approved hunting land.
2015 Legislative Policies 11
General Government
Metro Cities supports local control to allow or prohibit handguns and other
weapons on city-owned property.
2-D 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.
Metro Cities supports state funding for technology and training necessary to
provide the number and location of wireless and voice over internet protocol (VoIP)
calls to 911 on computer screens and transmit that data to police, fire and first
responders.
2-E 800 MHz Radio System
Metro Cities 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.
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 unless they so choose.
2-F 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 among the state, builders and cities.
Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the 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, and development of performance standards
and identification of construction "best practices."
Metro Cities supports including the International Green Construction Code as an
`optional appendix' to the State Building Code to allow cities to utilize appropriate
12 2015 Legislative Policies
General Legislation
parts of those guidelines in their communities. Metro Cities also supports adopting
the international energy conservation code to the state building code without
amendments. Metro Cities does not support legislative solutions that fail to
recognize the interrelationships among builders, state building codes and
cities. Metro Cities supports efforts to increase awareness of the potential impacts
and benefits of requiring sprinklers in new homes and townhouses and supports
discussion and the dissemination of information around these impacts via the code
adoption process through the Department of Labor and Industry.
2-G 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 administrative fine authority granted to allow
cities to issue administrative fines for defined local traffic offenses, and supports
further modifications to enhance the workability of the authority. Metro Cities
continues to support all cities' authority to use administrative fines for regulatory
ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, 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.
2-H 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.
Providers applying to operate residential care facilities should be required to notify the
city when applying for licensure so as to be informed of local ordinance requirements as
a part of the application process.
Licensing agencies should be required to notify the city of properties receiving licensure
to be operated as residential care facilities.
2015 Legislative Policies 13
General Government
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications to require licensed agencies and
licensed providers that operate residential care facilities to notify the city of
properties being operated as residential care facilities. Metro Cities also supports
the establishment of non-concentration standards, similar to those allowed for the
core cities, for residential care facilities to prevent clustering and require the
appropriate county agencies to enforce these rules.
2-I Annexation
Attempts have been made in recent years to reduce tensions between cities and townships
around annexations. A Municipal Boundary Adjustment Task Force, whose work was
published in 2009, worked to develop recommendations regarding best practices
annexation training for city and township officials to better communicate and jointly plan
potential annexations. While the task force was able to define the differences between
cities and townships on the issue of annexation, no significant advancements were made
in creating best practices.
Metro Cities supports continued legislative efforts to develop recommendations
regarding best practices annexation training for city and township officials to better
communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. Further, Metro Cities supports
substantive changes to the state's annexation laws that will lead to better land use
planning, energy conservation, greater environmental protection, fairer tax bases,
and fewer conflicts between townships and cities. Metro Cities also supports
technical annexation changes that have been agreed to by cities and townships.
2-J Housing Ordinance Enforcement
In 2008, the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled in Morris v. Sax that certain
provisions of the city of Morris' rental housing code were invalid because there were
subjects dealt with under the state building code and the city was attempting to regulate
these areas "differently from the state building code."Minnesota Statutes section 16B.6s
subdivision 1 states:
"The state building code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any
municipality. A municipality must not by ordinance or through development agreement
require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any residential
structure that are different from any provision of the state building code."
Metro Cities supports the ability of cities to enforce all housing codes passed by a
local municipality to maintain its housing stock.
14 2015 Legislative Policies
General Legislation
2-K Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact
Many issues including, but not limited to,the implementation of a metropolitan area
groundwater monitoring network, emerald ash borer eradication and the cleanup
of storm-water retention ponds, come with significant local costs, and have impacts that
reach beyond municipal boundaries.
Metro Cities supports the availability of statewide funding sources to address local
issues that have regional or statewide significance. Metro Cities opposes the
requirement of enacting ordinances more restrictive than state law in exchange for
access to these funds.
2-L Dangerous Substance Regulation
In metropolitan regions where most cities share boundary lines with other cities, local
bans of dangerous products and substances do not eliminate access to these products
unless all cities take the same regulatory action.
In circumstances where there is broad local support for a ban and any regulatory issues
under consideration are regional or statewide in nature, as evidenced by recent synthetic
marijuana and analog drug situations, Metro Cities supports statewide regulation and
prohibition of products or substances found to present a danger to anyone who uses
them.
2-M Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority
Cities are authorized to enact ordinances that disallow the placement of private wells
within city limits to ensure both water safety and availability for residents and businesses.
Municipal water systems are financially dependent upon users to operate and maintain
the system. A loss of significant rate payers as a result of unregulated private well drilling
would economically destabilize water systems and could lead to contamination of the
water supply.
Metro Cities supports current law authorizing cities to regulate and prohibit the
placement of private wells within municipal utility service boundaries and opposes
any attempt to remove or alter that authority.
2-N Organized Waste Collection
Cities over 1,000 in population are required by law to ensure all residents have solid
waste collection available to them. A city can meet the statutory requirement by licensing
haulers to operate in an open collection system, authorize city employees to collect waste,
or implement organized collection through one or multiple haulers to increase efficiency,
reduce truck traffic and control costs to residents.
2015 Legislative Policies 15
General Government
Metro Cities supports new laws enacted during the 2013 legislative session to
streamline statutory requirements to allow cities to work with existing haulers to
achieve the benefits of organized collection or investigate the merits of organized
collection without the pressure of a rigid timeline and requirement to pass `an intent
to organize' at the beginning of the discussion process. Metro Cities opposes any
legislation that would further increase the cost or further complicate the process
cities are required to follow to organize waste collection or prohibit cities from
implementing or using organized waste collection.
2-0 Election Administration Costs
Cities play a critical role in managing and ensuring the integrity of elections. Any
changes made to election laws to implement a voter ID requirement should not place
undue financial or administrative burdens on local governments. Additional costs
resulting from election law changes should be the responsibility of the state.
Metro Cities also supports the adoption of legislation to establish early voting as an
alternative to no excuse absentee voting. Early voting has been proven to be a cost
effective and efficient process in other states by reducing the burdensome administrative
mandates as required for absentee ballots.
2-P Utility Franchise Fees, Accountability and Cost Transparency
Minnesota cities are authorized by Minnesota statutes M.S. 216B and 301B.01 to require
a public utility (gas or electric) that provides services to the city or occupies the public
right of way within a city to obtain a franchise. Several metro area cities have entered
into such agreements which require that the utility pay a fee to help offset the costs of
maintaining the right of way.
Cities are also adopting energy policies that often result in the use of renewable energy
resources to light or heat public facilities. Policies and programs have also been instituted
in cooperation with the public utility franchisee to increase energy efficiency for all users.
Cities also contract at city expense with public utilities to "underground" wires.
The State of Minnesota has also adopted legislation that requires energy companies to
provide more of its electric energy from renewable sources. The specific amounts vary by
type of utility.
Metro Cities supports:
State policies adopted by legislation or through rules of the Public Utility
Commission that provide cities with the authority to include city energy policies and
priorities in a franchise or similar agreement with a franchisee.
Greater accountability and transparency for city paid costs associated with
16 2015 Legislative Policies
General Legislation
underground utility and similar work performed by electric utilities as part of a
local project.
2-Q Water Supply
Municipal water suppliers are charged with meeting the water supply needs of their
communities and work to do so with safe, reliable and cost effective systems that are
sustainable both for established cities and for all future growth.
The aquifers in the metropolitan area cross municipal boundaries and therefore require a
coordinated regional approach to planning for their future availability. Currently,
approximately 75% of municipal water supply in the metropolitan area comes from
groundwater. With proper management of the resource, the current water supply in the
region is adequate; however, Metropolitan Council projections predict localized declines
in aquifer availability due to population growth estimates if current usage levels are
maintained.
Regulation of water is complex and compartmentalized. Various agencies permit its use,
plan for its availability, regulate stormwater,treat wastewater and protect the safety of
water. To ensure that water supply remains adequate and sustainable across the region,
we must understand how much water can be sustainably drawn from the aquifers and
what effect increases in re-use, conservation and recharge can have on the sustainability
and availability of both groundwater and surface water. Many of these strategies cross
agency jurisdictions and will require improved coordination and cooperation.
Municipal water suppliers have made significant infrastructure investments in their
systems based on calculated water availability and DNR permits. Proposals to reduce the
reliance on groundwater by switching municipal water systems from groundwater to
surface water supplies will come with significant costs that could place excessive burdens
on local resources.
The outcomes and benefits of re-balancing the mix of groundwater and surface water use
for specific municipalities and the region must be identifiable before any projects are
undertaken. The sustainability of our water supply is an issue of regional and statewide
significance and the expense of any necessary projects that benefit the region should not
fall on individual cities. Any attempts to address water supply sustainability must also
take into account all water users, including municipal water suppliers, industry, private
wells, agriculture and contamination containment.
The metropolitan region must consider the effects of groundwater use beyond the borders
of the metropolitan area on the region's groundwater availability and the cost of treating
contaminants in surface water that comes into the metropolitan area for use.
Metro Cities supports the removal of barriers to wastewater re-use, improved inter-
agency coordination, clarifying the appropriate roles of local, regional and state
governments with respect to water, streamlining and consolidating permit approval
2015 Legislative Policies 17
General Government
processes and the availability of statewide resources to plan for and ensure the
future sustainability of water supply in the metropolitan area. Metro Cities also
encourages the Met Council to find ways to re-use wastewater and to develop other
strategies as a means to improve conservation.
Metro Cities supports state funding resources for costs associated with converting
water supply from groundwater to surface water and funds to encourage and
promote water conservation as a strategy to improve water sustainability and to
improve and protect water quality.
18 2015 Legislative Policies
14,
Housing & Economic
Development
Policies 3-A to 3-I: 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.
Adequate affordable housing is a significant concern for the metropolitan region and
effective approaches require participation from all levels of government, the private
sector and nonprofit groups.
3-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. Cities should have sufficient authority and flexibility to promote housing
types that are best suited to meet local needs, public purposes and goals.
While local government financial resources constitute a relatively small portion of the
total costs of providing housing, many cities take on a significant administrative burden
by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional
housing programs and supporting either local or countywide housing and redevelopment
authorities and community development agencies.
Cities are responsible for much of the ground-level housing policy in Minnesota;
including land-use planning, code enforcement, and often times the packaging of
financial incentives. 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. It is the responsibility of cities to periodically review
local requirements such as land use regulations and ordinances to ensure that they are
consistent with these purposes.
Metro Cities strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities'
authority to carry out these functions in a locally determined manner.
2015 Legislative Policies 19
Housing & Economic Development
3-B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
Metro Cities' supports both affordable housing and housing that is appropriate for
people at all stages of life. A variety of housing opportunities are important to the
economic and social well-being of individual communities and the region. Cities should
work with the private and nonprofit sectors, counties, state agencies and the Met Council
to ensure the best use of existing tools and resources to produce affordable housing.
Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable and life cycle housing
by:
• Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
• Providing information on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to
landlords;
• Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new
and existing neighborhoods, including locations with access to amenities and
services;
• Expediting review processes and periodically examining local requirements and
processes to ensure that requirements do not inhibit the construction of affordable
housing;
• Supporting housing design that is flexible for residents at multiple stages of life;
• Working to reduce locally imposed development costs and policies; and
• Using available regulatory mechanisms to shape housing communities.
3-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 as determined by local communities 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 need number, 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.
3-D Metropolitan Council Role in Housing
The Metropolitan Council is statutorily required to assist cities with meeting the
provisions of the Land Use Planning Act, which requires cities to adopt sufficient
20 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
standards, plans and programs to meet their local share of the region's overall projected
need for low and moderate income housing. The Council's responsibilities include the
preparation and adoption of guidelines and procedures to assist local government units
accomplish the requirements of the Land Use Planning Act.
The Metropolitan Council also offers a variety of programs and initiatives to create
affordable housing opportunities, including the Livable Communities Program, and
operation of a metropolitan housing and redevelopment authority.
Unlike parks, transit and wastewater, housing is not defined by statute as a regional
system,thus the Met Council's role, responsibilities and authority are more limited in
scope, centered on providing assistance to local governments by identifying the regional
need for affordable housing, projecting growth for the region and identifying available
and effective tools, resources, technical assistance and methods that cities can use to
create and promote affordable housing opportunities in their communities.
The Metropolitan Council should work in partnership with local governments to ensure
that the range of housing needs for people at various life-cycle and incomes can be met.
• Metro Cities opposes the elevation of housing to "Regional System" status.
• Metro Cities supports removing the Metropolitan Council's review and
comment authority connected to housing revenue bonds under M.S. 462C.04.
In 2014, the Metropolitan Council released a housing policy plan, the first of its kind in
nearly 30 years. The housing policy plan should include clearly defined local, regional
and state roles around the provision of housing in all sectors, identify the availability of
and need for tools and resources for affordable and lifecycle housing, be explicit in
supporting partnerships around the advocacy for state and federal resources for housing,
and encompass policies, best practices and technical guidance for all types of housing.
The plan should also recognize the diversity in local needs, characteristics, and resources.
Metro Cities supports strategies such as sub-regional cooperation and the sharing of
best practices among local governments and other entities and partners to address
housing issues.
The policy plan should allow for the provision of ongoing research and analysis by the
Metropolitan Council to provide communities with timely and updated information on
regional and local housing needs and market trends as regional and local needs change
and evolve. Metro Cities supports Council solicitation and use of local data, inputs
and analyses in this work, and local government review of data and analyses.
Metro Cities supports continued city representation and participation in further
developments or updates to the housing policy plan.
2015 Legislative Policies 21
Housing & Economic Development
3-E Allocation of Affordable Housing Need
The new Metropolitan Council Housing Policy Plan should include a revised
methodology for the allocation of need for affordable housing. The methodology
determines how many affordable housing units are needed in the region, and distributes
the need by assigning each city its fair share, with an affordable housing need number.
State law requires cities to guide sufficient land to accommodate local shares of the
region's affordable housing need.
Metro Cities supports the creation of a variety of housing opportunities. However,
the provision of 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
and allocation of need methodology that recognizes the following tenets:
• The Council's housing policies characterize individual city and sub-regional
housing numbers as a range of needs in the community;
• 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 and preserving existing
affordable housing;
• Metropolitan Council planning and policies must be more closely aligned to help
ensure that resources for transportation and transit are available to assist
communities in addressing their local share of the regional affordable housing
need and to ensure that all populations have adequate mobility to reach jobs,
education and other destinations regardless of where they live;
• Absent significant resources to assist cities, the Met Council will not hold cities
responsible if a city cannot meet its affordable housing need number and the
Met Council will reassess biennially the range of needs to recognize the
deficiency;
• The Metropolitan Council,with input by local government representatives,
should examine the allocation of need methodology with respect to the
relationship between the regional allocation and the local share of the need. The
formula should also be routinely evaluated to determine if market conditions
have changed or if underlying conditions should prompt readjustment of the
formula;
22 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
• The Council should use a methodology that incorporates data accumulated by
individual cities, and not limited to census driven or policy driven growth
projections;
• The formula should be adjusted to better reflect the balance and breadth of
existing subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing stocks; and
• The Council should work with local governments through an appeals process in
order to resolve any local issues and concerns with respect to the need
allocations.
3-F Housing Performance Scores
The Metropolitan Council uses city Housing Performance Scores in the regional
solicitation process, and the Council's Livable Communities grant scoring criteria to
determine funding awards. The Metropolitan Council calculates a city's housing
performance score annually. Scores are determined using an annual city survey as well as
Council data.
In 2014, the Metropolitan Council convened a working group to reevaluate criteria used
to determine a city's Housing Performance Score. Additionally, the Council is exploring
other areas in which to use a city's score in funding decisions. Any exploration of
additional areas or programs in which the Council would seek to use the Housing
Performance Score should be considered with the input of local officials.
Metro Cities supports Housing Performance Score criteria that recognize the
variation in local resource capacities,tools, programs and policies for cities to
support housing production and the market nature of housing development, and
that does not limit cities to a prescriptive list of tools and policies. The criteria for
determining the score should adequately recognize the current tools and resources
employed by local governments.
Metro Cities supports a process for local governments to review, comment on and
appeal preliminary Housing Performance Scores as well as provide additional
information to be used in calculating the scores.
Metro Cities supports a consistent schedule for sending the annual housing
production survey to cities.
In considering Housing Performance Score uses and criteria:
• The Council should engage in a periodic review of the formula;
• Any proposed use of the Housing Performance Scores should be reviewed by
local officials; and
2015 Legislative Policies 23
Housing & Economic Development
• The Council should recognize market factors such as downward economic cycles
when setting timelines and look backs in calculating recent affordable housing
production.
3-G State Role in Housing
The state must be an active participant in providing funding for housing needs, including
direct funding, financial incentives and initiatives to assist local governments and
developers to support affordable housing. Current resource levels are insufficient to meet
the spectrum of housing needs in the metropolitan region and across the state.
Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and
the Department of Employee and Economic Development (DEED), the state establishes
general direction and prioritization of housing issues. The state financially supports a
variety of housing types including transitional housing, supportive housing, senior
housing, workforce housing and family housing. The state must continue to be an active
partner in addressing life cycle and affordable housing issues.
Workforce housing is generally defined as housing which supports economic
development and job growth and is affordable to the local workforce. Governor Dayton
dedicated $10 million in one-time funds to MHFA in the 2013 legislative session to fund
the Housing and Job Growth Initiative, to aid housing in support of job growth within a
community or region by meeting locally identified housing needs.
Metro Cities supports:
• Increased funding, including state general funds and, possibly, alternate sources
of revenue, for programs that support life cycle,workforce and affordable
housing,foreclosure mitigation and senior, transitional and emergency housing.
The state should consider establishing a non-competitive program to create a
pipeline to match city-subsidized affordable housing projects;
• Housing programs that assist housing development throughout the low-to-
moderate income range;
• Housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in census blocks
with emerging or high concentrations of poverty,where the private market
might not otherwise invest as a means of reconciling affordable housing with
community development goals;
• Continuing the policy of using the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's
investment earnings for housing programs;
• City input into state legislation involving distribution of tax credits and tax
exempt bonding;
24 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
•
• Exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the
development and production of affordable housing;
• Consideration of providing state tax credits to leverage cross-subsidized
affordable units in a market rate development project. This incentive could be
used in conjunction with city, regional, or other state incentives;
• Consideration of the use of state bond proceeds and other appropriations for
land banking, land trusts, and rehabilitation and construction of affordable
housing;
• Homeownership counseling services, including pre-purchasing counseling, in
order to help reduce foreclosures by informing homeowners and potential
homeowners of their rights, options and costs associated with owning a home;
• An affordable housing tax credit to help spur construction and secure additional
private investment; and
• Maintain existing municipal authority to establish a housing improvement area
(HIA). If the Legislature grants multi-jurisdictional entities the authority to
create HIAs, creation of an HIA must require municipal approval.
3-H Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing
Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels
of funding for affordable and workforce housing. Federal investment in affordable and
workforce 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 and workforce housing throughout the state.
Providing working families access to housing is an important piece to the economic
vitality of the region.
Metro Cities strongly encourages the following:
• To preserve and increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant
Program and the federal HOME program,which are catalysts 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;
2015 Legislative Policies 25
•
Housing & Economic Development
•
• To maintain and increase resources to Section 8 funding. It is a flexible, cost
effective, and successful program that has helped nearly two million families
nationally find housing through promotion of self-sufficiency and stability; and
• To support federal funding to provide short-term assistance for HRAs in order
to facilitate the sale of tax-exempt bonds.
3-I Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk
While mortgage foreclosures are responsible for a portion of vacant and boarded
properties, they are not the only cause. Abandoned residential and commercial properties
can be devastating to communities when the presence of vacant buildings 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 solutions to vacant and boarded properties that recognize
three things: (1) Prevention is more cost effective than a cure. (2) The causes of this
problem are many and varied, thus the solutions must be as well. (3) It is not simply
a "city" problem so cities must not be expected to bear the bulk of the burden of
mitigation.
Further, Metro Cities supports some specific proposals:
• Improvement of the redemption process to provide increased notification to
renters, strengthen the ability of homeowners to retain their properties, and
reduce the amount of time a property is vacant;
• Expedition of the tax forfeiture process;
• Improve the cost assignment process to ensure that cities can recoup their costs
of managing vacant properties;
• Improve ability of cities to recoup the increased public safety and enforcement
costs related to vacant properties;
• Increase financial tools for neighborhood recovery efforts, including tax
increment financing;
• Allowing cities to acquire vacant and boarded properties before deterioration
and vandalism result in unsalvageable structures; including providing financial
tools such as increasing eminent domain flexibility;
• Registration of vacant and boarded properties; and
26 2015 Legislative Policies
•
Housing & Economic Development
• Year-round notification by utility companies of properties not receiving utility
service.
3-J Economic Development, Redevelopment and Workforce Readiness
The economic viability of the metro area is enhanced by a broad array of economic
development tools that create infrastructure, recycle previously developed property,
provide incentives for business development, and support technological advances and
support a trained workforce. It should be the goal of the state to champion development
by providing enough sustainable funding to assure competitiveness in a global
marketplace. The State of Minnesota should recognize cities as the primary unit of
government responsible for the implementation of economic development,
redevelopment policies and land use controls. State assistance to cities for development is
required in three broad areas: (1) Economic Development—direct business assistance;
and (2) Redevelopment/Development—real estate development; and (3) Workforce
Readiness. Economic Development and Redevelopment are not mutually exclusive—
some projects require a boost on both counts.
3-J (1) Economic Development
For purposes of this section, economic development is defined as a form of development
that contains direct business assistance with the goal of sustainable job creation,job
retention or to nurture new or retain existing industry in the state. The measure of return
on investment of public business subsidies should include the impact (positive or
negative) of"spin-off development"or business development that is ancillary and
supportive of the primary business.
Metro Cities supports:
• Continued competitive funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund;
• Continued funding for the Urban Initiative Program and other state programs
to support minority business start-ups;
• Continued support for the Bioscience partnerships among cities, companies and
University of Minnesota;
• Development of green opportunities for green job development and related
innovation and entrepreneurship;
• Economic tools that facilitate job growth without relying solely on the growth of
property tax base;
• The Regional Competitiveness Project, a collaboration of the Regional Council
of Mayors and the Business and Workforce investment Boards(DEED)with the
2015 Legislative Policies 27
•
Housing & Economic Development
goal of implementing a regional economic and workforce development
competitiveness strategy for short and long-term economic growth;
• The Itasca Project, an employer led project to drive regional efforts to keep the
Twin Cities economy and quality of life competitive with other regions;
• The Metro Business Plan initiative, a pilot project designed to highlight the
emergence of metropolitan areas as a dominant source of economic and cultural
power in modern America;
• Greater MSP, a region-wide, private-public partnership whose mission is to
stimulate economic growth in the 16-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Region;
• Funding"QED's," the Qualified Economic Development Lender loan guarantee
program;
• Small business financing tools, such as a state new markets tax credit program,
mirrored on the federal program,which provides capital for business;
• Tools, such as tax incentives, to attract and retain data centers and other IT
facilities; and
• Maintain existing municipal authority to establish a special service district
(SSD), and support further study for allowing mixed-use buildings that have
both commercial and residential uses to be included in an SSD.
3-J (2) Redevelopment
Redevelopment involves the development of land that requires "predevelopment." The
goal of redevelopment is to facilitate the development of"pre-used" land, thereby
leveling the playing field between green field and brown field sites so that a private
sector entity can rationally choose to locate on land that has already been used. The
benefits of redevelopment include a decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), more
efficient use of new or existing public infrastructure (including public transit),
ameliorated city costs due to public safety and code enforcement, and other public goods
that result when land is reused rather than abandoned and compact development is
encouraged.
Metro Cities supports:
• Increased funding and flexibility in the Metropolitan Council's Livable
Communities Programs. Metro Cities strongly opposes funding reductions,
transfers of Livable Communities Program funds to other program areas and
constraints on eligibility and program requirements. Metro Cities supports
allowing a maximum levy amount for this program, as provided for under
Minnesota Statutes;
28 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
• Increased, flexible and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup and
Investigation Grant Program, administered by DEED;
• New financing and regulatory tools to nurture Transit Oriented Development, as
well as increased flexibility in the use of TIF for this purpose;
• Funding Transit Improvement Areas (TIAs) and ensuring that the eligibility
criteria encourage a range of improvements and infrastructure and
accommodate varying city circumstances and needs;
• The ability of cities to self-designate TIAs in their communities;
• Increased and sustained general fund and state bond funds for the
Redevelopment Grant Program, administered by DEED, dedicated to
Metropolitan Area projects;
• The evaluation of SAC fees to determine if they hinder redevelopment;
• Expansion of existing tools or development of new funding mechanisms to
correct unstable soils;
• Extension of the sunset of the state income tax credit for preservation of historic
properties;
• State funding to allow cities and/or their development authorities to assemble
small properties so that business expansion sites will be ready for future
redevelopment;
• Innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure grants; and
• City authority to redevelop land previously used as landfills and dumps with
initial approval from a state regulatory authority, a city's redevelopment project
considered as final.
3-J (3) Workforce Readiness
A trained workforce is important to a strong local, regional and state economy. Cities
have an interest in the availability of qualified workers and building a future workforce as
part of their economic development efforts and can work with the public and private
sectors to address workforce readiness issues such as addressing racial disparities in both
the achievement and employment gaps. The state has a role to prepare and train a
qualified workforce through the higher education system and job training and retraining
programs in the Department of Employment and Economic Development, including
youth employment programs.
2015 Legislative Policies 29
Housing & Economic Development
Metro Cities supports:
• Continued funding for the Job Skills Partnership,youth employment programs
and other workforce training programs administered by the state that lead to
jobs that provide a living wage and benefits, and help address racial disparity
gaps in employment; and
• A payroll tax credit for job training programs that invest in skilled employees.
3-K Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been and continues to be the primary tool available
for local communities to assist 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.
The 2006 eminent domain changes 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. With huge state and federal
budget deficits,the only source of revenue available to accomplish the scope of
redevelopment necessary is the value created by the redevelopment itself, or the
"increment." Without the use of the increment development will either not occur or is
unlikely to be optimal.
Metro Cities urges the Legislature to:
• Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain or directly or
indirectly reduce the effectiveness of TIF;
• Not adopt any statutory language that would allow a county, school district or
special taxing district to opt out of a TIF district.
• 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;
30 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
• Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit related TIF districts in order
to shape development and related improvements around transit stations but not
require the use of TIF districts to fund the construction or maintenance of the
public transit line itself unless a local community chooses to do so;
• Allow TIF eligibility expansion to innovative technological products, recognizing
that not only physical items create economic value;
• Support changes to TIF law that will facilitate the development of"regional
projects";
• Shift TIF redevelopment policy away from a focus on "blight" and
"substandard"to "functionally obsolete" or a focus on long range planning for a
particular community, reduction in green house gases or other criteria more
relevant to current needs;
• Encourage DEED to do an extensive cost-benefit analysis related to
redevelopment, including an analysis of the various funding mechanisms, and an
analysis of where the cost burden falls with each of the options compared the to
the distribution of the benefits of the redevelopment project;
• Support TIF for neighborhood recovery efforts in the wake of the foreclosure
crisis;
• 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;
• Metro Cities encourages the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more
efficient and streamlined reporting process. There are an increasing number of
noncompliance notices that have overturned longstanding practices or limited
statutorily defined terms. The Legislature has not granted TIF rulemaking
authority to the State Auditor and the audit powers granted by statute are not
an appropriate vehicle for making administrative or legislative changes to TIF
statutes. If the State Auditor is to exercise rulemaking authority, the
administrative power to do so must be granted explicitly by the Legislature. The
audit enforcement process does not create a level playing field for cities to
challenge the Auditor's interpretation of statutes. The Legislature should
provide a process through which to resolve disputes over TIF policy that is fair
to all parties;
• Clarifying use of TIF when a sale occurs after the closing of a district;
• Revise substandard building test to simplify, resolve ambiguities, and reduce
continued threat of litigation; and
2015 Legislative Policies 31
Housing & Economic Development
• Amend TIF statute to address,through extending districts or other mechanisms,
shortfalls related to declining market values during economic crises.
3-L 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 may deteriorate to
unprecedented levels before the public reacts. Metro Cities strongly encourages the
Governor and Legislature to revisit the 2006 eminent domain changes to allow local
governments to address redevelopment problems before those conditions become
financially impossible to address. Specifically, the Legislature should:
• Clarify contamination standards;
• Develop different standards for redevelopment to include obsolete structures or
to reflect the deterioration conditions that currently exist in the metro area;
• Allow for the assembly of multiple parcels for redevelopment projects;
• Provide for the ability to acquire land from "holdouts"who will now view a
publicly funded project as an opportunity for personal gain at taxpayer expense;
i.e. allow for negotiation using balanced appraisals for fair relocation costs;
• Modify the public purpose definition under Chapter 117 to allow cities to more
expediently address properties that are vacant or abandoned in areas with high
levels of foreclosures, so as to address neighborhood stabilization and recovery;
and
• Allow for relocation costs not to be paid if the city and property owner agree to a
sale contract.
32 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
3-M Community Reinvestment
Communities across the metropolitan region have aging residential and commercial
structures that are in need of repair and reinvestment. Reinvestment prevents
neighborhoods from falling into disrepair, revitalizes communities and protects a city's
tax base.
Metro Cities supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older
residential and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax
credits and/or property tax deferrals.
Historically, the state has funded programs to promote reinvestment in communities,
including the "This Old House"program, that allowed owners of older homestead
property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements
to the home and "This Old Shop" for owners of older commercial/industrial property that
make improvements that increase the property's market value.
3-N Business Incentives Policy
Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the
Business Subsidy Act but should look to technical changes that would streamline both
state and local processes and procedures. The legislature should distinguish between
development incentives and redevelopment activities. In addition, in order to ensure
cohesive and comprehensive regulations, the legislature should limit regulation of
business incentives to the Business Subsidy Act.
Metro Cities supports additional legislation that includes tools to help enhance and
facilitate economic development and job creation.
3-0 Broadband Technology
Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs
and availability of traditional infrastructure—roads, rail and utilities—the new economy
is increasingly dependent on reliable, cost effective, high bandwidth telecommunications
capabilities. This includes voice, video, data and other services delivered over cable,
telephone, fiber-optic, wireless and other platforms. 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 1 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 ensure that U.S. companies in general and Minnesota companies in
particular can compete effectively in the global economy.
2015 Legislative Policies 33
Housing & Economic Development
• Metro Cities endorses comprehensive and regional strategies to stimulate the
implementation of high speed, reliable and cost effective internet service that is
available throughout the state. Metro Cities supports the repeal of Minnesota
Statute 237.19. Policies should not diminish local authority to manage public
rights-of-way, to zone, to collect compensation for the use of public assets, or to
work cooperatively with the private sector.
• Metro Cities opposes the adoption of state policies that further restrict a city's
ability to finance, construct or operate broadband telecommunications networks.
• Metro Cities supports metro eligibility for any broadband funding.
• Metro Cities supports statutory clarity around franchising when a provider
ceases business operations and a successor has not been named.
3-P City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development
Historically, cities have played a major role in environmental protection, particularly in
water quality. Through the construction and operation of wastewater treatment and storm
water management systems, cities are a leader in protecting the surface water of the state.
In recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on protecting ground water and
removing impairments from storm water. In addition, there is increased emphasis on city
participation in controlling our carbon footprint and in promoting green development.
Metro Cities supports public and private environmental protection efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and to further protect surface and ground water. Metro
Cities also supports "green" design and construction techniques to the extent that
those techniques have been thoroughly tested and are truly environmentally
beneficial, economically sustainable, and represent sound building practices. Metro
Cities supports additional, feasible environmental protection with adequate funding
and incentives to comply.
Green jobs represent employment and entrepreneurial opportunities that are part of the
green economy, as defined in Minnesota statue 116.437J1, including the four industry
sectors of green products, renewable energy, green services and environmental
conservation. Minnesota's green jobs policies, strategies and investments need to lead to
high quality jobs with good wages and benefits, meeting current wage and labor laws.
3-Q 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. Since all types of properties are required to pay
storm water fees, Metro Cities opposes entity-specific exemptions from these fees. Metro
Cities supports the goals of the Clean Water Act and efforts at both the federal and state
34 2015 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
level to implement it.
Metro Cities supports continued funding of the framework passed in the 2009
Legacy legislation for clean water to improve the region's ability to respond to
market demands for development and redevelopment, including dedicated funding
for surface water impairment assessments, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
development, storm water construction grants and wastewater construction grants.
Local units of government should not bear undue cost burdens associated with
completed TMDL reports. As recent TMDL reports show, non-point agricultural
sources are producing more run off pollution than urban areas at a rate of 13:1.
Cities must not be required as primary entities for funding the clean-up and
protection of state and regional water resources. Benefits of efforts must be
proportional to the costs incurred and agricultural sources must be held responsible
for their share of costs.
2015 Legislative Policies 35
Housing & Economic Development
36 2015 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
Akio
4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance
The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to the majority of our state's population and
businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time,
our metropolitan region faces significant challenges and opportunities. The responses to
these opportunities and challenges will determine the future success of the region and its
competitiveness in our state, national and world economies.
The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region,
and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and
service delivery.
The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency, with regional
and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and
implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function
successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration
with city governments.
The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities
with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are
responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and
service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council
should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should
not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes, unless such changes have the consent
of the region's cities.
• Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the
effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services
and planning throughout the metropolitan area.
• Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning
that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level
than at the local level by individual local units of government.
• The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services
and planning and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues, and be
required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory
committees and task forces.
2015 Legislative Policies 37
Metropolitan Agencies
• The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and
implementation around the regional development guide, policy plans,systems
statements, and local comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency,
balance and Council adherence to its core mission and functions. These
processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies and plans are
released for comment and finalized.
4-B Regional Governance Structure
Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the
Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the
Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor.
Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation
and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to the creation of four
separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of
the region. Members of each committee should include three city officials, appointed by
Metro Cities, one county commissioner appointed by the Association of MN Counties or
a comparable entity, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three of the
local officials should be elected officials.
Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have
demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner, and who
understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term
implications of regional decision-making.
4-C Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council
Our region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges
around the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure,
Metro Cities believes that a comprehensive analysis of the Metropolitan Council is timely
and appropriate, to assure that the region is equipped to address the future needs of a
rapidly changing and growing metropolitan region.
Metro Cities supports an objective, forward thinking analysis of the Metropolitan
Council that includes the Council's authority, activities, services, and its
geographical jurisdiction, and includes analysis of whether the Council is positioned
to be effective in the coming decades.
4-D Oversight of Metropolitan Council
Metro Cities supports the bipartisan Legislative Commission on Metropolitan
Government, or another entity,to monitor and review the Metropolitan Council's
activities and to provide transparency and accountability of the Metropolitan
38 2015 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
Council operations and functions.
The Metropolitan Council should examine its scope of services to determine their benefit
and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are
provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region.
4-E 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
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. Fee
proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are
collected.
Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees 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.
4-F Regional Systems
Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment
and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan
Council's authority over 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 prepared by the Metropolitan Council for the 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.
Metro Cities supports additional regional systems only 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 fit these criteria. Any proposed additional regional
system must have an established regional or state funding source.
2015 Legislative Policies 39
Metropolitan Agencies
4-G Regional Water Supply Planning
The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out regional planning
activities to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. A Metropolitan Area
Water Supply Advisory Committee that includes state agency representatives and local
officials was concurrently established to assist the Council in developing a master water
supply plan that includes recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and
state governments, streamlining and consolidating approval processes and recommending
future planning and capital investments. The Master Water Supply Plan serves as a
framework for assisting and guiding communities in their water supply planning, without
usurping local decision making processes. Many cities also conduct their own analyses
for use in water supply planning.
The 2010 Legislature expanded the membership of the Advisory Committee so that it
includes four officials from the collar counties and has extended the timeframe for the
committee's work. The extension of the committee, which includes five metro area
municipal officials, allows the committee to continue to play a key role in the
development and direction of water supply planning activities as the Master Plan is
updated and implemented with additional information and data as they become available.
As the Met Council continues its assessment of the region's water supply and issues
around sustainability, the Council must work cooperatively with local policymakers and
professional staff throughout the region on an on-going and structured basis, to ensure a
base of information for water supply decision making that is sound, credible and
verifiable, and that takes into account local information, data, cost-benefit analyses and
projections before any resulting policy recommendations are issued.
Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter-relationships of
wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional
regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Water Supply Plan. Further,
regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses
between the regional and local units of government.
Metro Cities supports Metropolitan Council planning activities which address
regional water supply needs and water planning activities as prescribed in statute.
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.
Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with
municipal water supply projects. Any fees or taxes for regional water supply
planning activities must be consistent with activities prescribed in MN Statutes 473.
1565, and support activities specifically within the region.
40 2015 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
4-H 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(LUPA);
• Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues.
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. 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;
• Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control
Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other
stakeholders to identify common ground and resolve conflicts between respective
goals for flexible residential development and achieving consistency with the
Council's system plans and policies; and
• Require entities, such as private businesses, nonprofits, or local units of government,
among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be
subject to the same qualifications and/or regulations as the city.
4-I Comprehensive Planning Process
Metro Cities supports an examination of the comprehensive planning process to
make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient, so as to assist in alleviating
excessive cost burdens or duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by
municipalities in the comprehensive planning process. Metro Cities supports
resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of the comprehensive
planning process.
2015 Legislative Policies 41
Metropolitan Agencies
4-J Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates to the Metropolitan Council
every 10 years, the most recent of which was due in 2008. A city's comprehensive plan
represents a community's vision of how the city should grow and develop or redevelop,
ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and services, protect
natural areas and meet other community objectives.
Metro Cities recognizes that the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the
release of census data. However, the comprehensive plan process is expensive,time
consuming and labor intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of
comprehensive plans should not be altered solely to better align with census data. If
sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for the next round of comprehensive plans
to be changed or expedited, cities should be provided with financial resources to assist
them in preparing the next round of plans.
Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning as a result
of regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive
planning schedule, Metro Cities supports financial and other resources to assist
cities in preparing and incorporating policy changes in local planning efforts.
Metro Cities supports a 10-year time frame for comprehensive plan submissions.
4-K Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full
authority to approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs
of their own community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities'
comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan
Council or any other governmental agency.
Metro Cities supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions, and
opposes the creation of non-local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city
zoning decisions.
4-L Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecasts projects a population of 3,743,000 people
by 2040.
Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that
integrate transportation, housing,parks, open space and economic development that will
result in a region better equipped to manage population growth, to provide a high quality
of life for a growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved
environmental health.
42 2015 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate
state and regional financial resources and incentives, and maximum flexibility around
local planning decisions are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in
managing growth while being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and
needs of metropolitan cities, and should encourage sub-regional cooperation and
coordination.
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 resources 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 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 and Legislature 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;
• The Metropolitan Council must recognize the various needs and capacities of its
many partners, including but not limited to cities, counties, economic development
authorities and nonprofit organizations, and its policies must be balanced and flexible
in their approach;
• Metropolitan counties, adjacent 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; and
• 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
2015 Legislative Policies 43
Metropolitan Agencies
with 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.
4-M 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. The state and region play significant roles in the protection of natural
resources. Any steps taken by the state or Metropolitan Council regarding the protection
of natural resources must recognize that:
• The protection of natural resources is 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;
• 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 should be balanced with the need to accommodate
growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more
affordable housing and provide transportation and transit connections; and
• Decisions about the zoning or land use designations, either within or outside a public
park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility
of local units of government.
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.
The Metropolitan Council's role with respect to climate change, as identified in the 2040
regional development guide, should be focused on the stewardship of its internal
operations (wastewater, transit) and working collaboratively with local governments to
provide information, best practices, technical assistance and incentives around responses
to climate change.
44 2015 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities urges the Legislature and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial
assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources.
4-N Inflow and Infiltration (I/I)
The Metropolitan Council has identified nearly half of all sewered communities in the
metropolitan region to be contributing excessive inflow and infiltration into the regional
wastewater system. Inflow and infiltration are terms for the ways that clear water(ground
and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes and gets treated, unnecessarily, at
regional wastewater plants. The number of identified communities is subject to change,
depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area can be affected. Another
19 cities have been identified as being near the threshold, or at risk, for contributing
excessive I/I into the system.
The Metropolitan Council establishes a surcharge on cities determined to be contributing
unacceptable amounts of I/I into the wastewater system. The charge is waived when cities
meet certain parameters through local mitigation efforts.
Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because of its potential
environmental and public health impacts, because it affects the size, and therefore the
cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/I in one city can affect
development capacity of another. However, there is the potential for cities to incur
increasingly exorbitant costs in their ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive I/I.
Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program and supports continued reviews
of the methodology used to measure excess I/I to ensure that the methodology
appropriately normalizes for precipitation variability and the Council's work with cities
on community specific issues around I/I.
Metro Cities supports state financial assistance for Metro Area I/I mitigation
through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation and
encourages the Metropolitan Council to partner in support of such appropriations.
Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro
area cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into
municipal wastewater collection systems.
4-0 Service Availability Charge (SAC)
Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, transparency,
simplification and lower rates.
Metro Cities supports a "growth pays for growth" approach to SAC as
recommended by a 2010 Task Force of Met Council members and city officials, and
that was subsequently adopted by the Met Council. This approach requires a
statutory change. If state statutes are modified to effect a "growth pays for growth"
2015 Legislative Policies 45
Metropolitan Agencies
method for SAC, the Metropolitan Council should convene a group of local officials
to identify any technical changes necessary for implementing the new structure.
Metro Cities supports allowing the Council to utilize the SAC `transfer' mechanism
provided for in state statute,when the SAC reserve fund is inadequate to meet debt
service obligations. Any use of the transfer mechanism must be done so within
parameters prescribed by state law and with appropriate notification and processes to
allow local official input and should include a timely `shift back' of any transferred funds
from the wastewater fund to the SAC reserve fund.
Metro Cities supports principles for SAC recommended by a 2014 work group that
examined the overall SAC program and structure. These include support for
program transparency and simplicity, equity for all served communities and
between current and future users,support for cities' sewer fee capacities,
administrative reasonableness, and weighing any program uses for specific goals
with the impacts to the program's equity,transparency and simplicity. As such,
Metro Cities opposes the use of the SAC mechanism to subsidize particular
Metropolitan Council goals and objectives.
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council providing details on how any
changes to the SAC rate are determined. Metro Cities supports a periodic review of
MCES' customer service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and
transparent to communities, businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports
continued outreach by MCES to users of the SAC program to promote knowledge
and understanding of SAC charges and policies.
4-P Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and
the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and
improvement of these parks. State funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40
percent of the operating budget for regional parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails
should be balanced between metro and greater Minnesota.
4-Q Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and
provides a voluntary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development, tax
base revitalization,job growth and preservation, 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. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA program has generated billions
of dollars of private and public investment, created thousands of jobs and added
thousands of affordable housing units in the region.
46 2015 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities supports a review of the LCA programs, and any necessary statutory
changes to ensure that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the
Livable Communities Demonstration Account(LCDA).
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the
LCDA 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 the statutory goals and criteria established for the Livable
Communities Act, and opposes any changes to LCA programs that constrain
flexibility around statutory goals, program requirements and criteria.
Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Program and
the transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages
among the goals, municipal objectives, and Met Council system objectives.
Metro Cities supports the use of LCA funds for projects in transit improvement
areas, as defined in statute, as long as funding levels for general LCA programs are
adequate to meet program goals and the program remains accessible to
participating communities.
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.
4-R Density
Any Met Council density policy and density determination must take into account the
impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities.
Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy and density
determination that bases density projections on local data, actual development
patterns, is flexible and accommodates cities at various development stages.
2015 Legislative Policies 47
Metropolitan Agencies
•
48 2015 Legislative Policies
Transportation
5-A Transportation Funding
A comprehensive transportation system is a vital component in planning for and meeting
the physical, social and economic needs of our state and metropolitan region. Adequate
and stable sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance
of a high quality, efficient and safe transportation system that meets these needs and that
will position the state and region to be economically competitive in the years ahead.
Under current transportation financing structures, transportation needs in the metropolitan
region continue to be inadequate and underfunded. Our transportation funding system
relies primarily on the gas tax for roads and the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) for
transit. Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts continue to lag
behind projections, resulting in funding levels that continually fail to meet demand.
Transportation funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local
policymakers so that the transportation system can sufficiently meet the needs of the
state's residents and businesses and its projected population growth. Funding and
planning for our regional and statewide systems must be coordinated at the federal, state,
regional and local levels to optimally achieve long term needs and goals.
In addition, cities lack adequate tools and state resources for the maintenance and
improvement of municipal systems, with resources restricted to property taxes and
special assessments. It is imperative that alternative revenue generating authority be
granted to municipalities and state resources be made available for this purpose to relieve
the burden on the property tax system.
Metro Cities strongly supports stable and sufficient statewide transportation
funding and local tools to meet the long term transportation system needs of the
region and local municipal systems. Metro Cities also supports state financial
assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction,to offset the impacts of
regional transportation construction projects on local communities and businesses.
5-B Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system as part of
a comprehensive transportation strategy that serves both commuters and the transit
dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of HOV lanes, a network of
bike and pedestrian trails, Bus Rapid Transit, express and regular route bus service,
exclusive transit ways, light rail transit, streetcars and commuter rail corridors designed
to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should
2015 Legislative Policies 49
Transportation
be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the
region's changing travel patterns.
Metro Cities opposes using the currently dedicated Metropolitan Transportation
Area sales tax proceeds to further subsidize operational funding for Metro Transit
and suburban transit providers that are the responsibility of the Legislature and
Metropolitan Council. Any increase to the sales tax already dedicated to transit
should be used to benefit the transit system as a whole.
Metro Cities is also opposed to legislative or Metropolitan Council 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.
In the interest of including all potential options in the pursuit of a regionally
balanced transit system, Metro Cities supports the repeal of the law passed in 2002
which imposed a gag order on the Dan Patch Commuter Rail Line.
In the interest of safety and traffic management, Metro Cities supports further
study of rail safety issues relating to water quality protections, general public safety
concerns relating to derailments, traffic implications from longer and more frequent
trains and the sensitive balance between rail commerce and the quality of life
impacts on the communities through which they pass.
Current congestion levels and forecasted population growth require a stable, reliable and
growing source of revenue for transit construction and operations so that our metropolitan
region can adequately and strategically meet its transportation needs to remain
economically competitive. Metro Cities supports an effective, efficient and
comprehensive regional transit system as an invaluable component in meeting the
multimodal transportation needs of the metropolitan region and to the region's
economic vibrancy and quality of life.
Metro Cities supports a regional governance structure that can ensure a measurably
reliable and efficient system that recognizes the diverse transit needs of our region
and addresses the funding needs for all components of the system.
Metro Cities recognizes the need for flexibility in transit systems for cities that border the
edges of the seven county metropolitan area to ensure users can get to points outside of
the seven county area. Metro Cities encourages the Met Council to work with border
counties to help coordinate planning so riders can get to and from destinations
beyond the boundaries of the region.
50 2015 Legislative Policies
Transportation
5-C Transit Financing
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding
to include rail transit and dedicated busways. 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 required to fund the
operation of specific transit lines or routes of service within this regional system. MVST
revenue projections have not been reliable and the Legislature has repeatedly reduced
general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result the regional transit providers
continue to operate at a funding deficit.
Shifting demographics in the metropolitan region will mean increased demand for transit
in areas with and without current transit service. Metro Cities supports stable and
growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget for all regional transit
providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital transit
needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no
transit options.
Metro Cities supports an increase in the regional sales tax to fund the expansion of
regular route service, the continuing capital expenses and expanded operational
needs of the metropolitan transit system if the increase is accompanied by sufficient
local controls over the collection and expenditure of the new revenue and
geographic balance is maintained in the expansion of service to allow cities to
appropriately plan for growth in population and service needs along new and
expanded transit service. Metro Cities opposes diversions of the uses of this tax for
any other purposes.
5-D Street Improvement Districts
Funding sources for local transportation projects are limited to the use of Municipal State
Aid (MSA),property taxes and special assessments, and cities under 5,000 in population
are not eligible for MSA. With increasing pressures on city budgets and limited tools and
resources, cities are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain aging streets.
Street improvement districts allow cities in developed and developing areas to fund new
construction as well as reconstruction and maintenance efforts.
The street improvement district is designed to allow cities,through the use of a fair and
objective fee structure, to create a district or districts within the city where fees will be
raised on all properties in the district and that must be spent within the boundaries of the
district. Street improvement districts would also aid cities under 5,000, giving them an
alternative to the property tax system and special assessments.
Metro Cities supports the authority of local units of government to establish street
improvement districts. Metro Cities also supports changes to special assessment
2015 Legislative Policies 51
Transportation
laws to make assessing state-owned property a more predictable process with
uniformity in the payment of assessments across the state.
5-E Highway Turnbacks & Funding
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 jurisdictional reassignment or turnback 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.
Metro Cities does not support the wholesale turnback of county or state roads
without the consent of municipality and the total cost,agreed to by the municipality,
being reimbursed to the city in a timely manner.
5-F "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role
The Transportation Advisory Board (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. Input by local officials into the
planning and prioritization of transportation investments in the region is a vital
component of these processes.
Metro Cities supports continuation of the TAB with a majority of locally elected
officials as members and participating in the process.
5-G Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws
Enforcement of traffic laws with cameras has been demonstrated to improve driver
compliance and safety.
Metro Cities supports the use of photo enforcement technology.
5-H Airport Noise Mitigation
The Metropolitan Airports Commission(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
52 2015 Legislative Policies
•
Transportation
property owner to disclose those properties that lie within 64-60 DNL noise contours.
Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airports 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. Metro Cities wants to encourage continued
communication between the MAC commissioners and the cities they represent.
Balancing the needs of MAC, the business community and airport host cities and their
residents requires open communication, planning and coordination. Cities must be
viewed as partners with the MAC in resolving the differences that arise out of airport
projects and the development of adjacent parcels. Regular contact between the MAC and
cities throughout the project proposal process will enhance communication and problem
solving.
Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures and the work of
the Noise Oversight Committee to minimize the impacts of 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.
5-I 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 County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distributions to
metropolitan counties are inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the
metropolitan area. Possible funding sources include the five-percent set-aside account in
the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts,
street improvement districts, and/or state general funds.
Metro Cities supports establishing criteria, such as the number of average daily
trips, to provide funding qualifications and a distribution method, in a small city
local road improvement program.
5-J County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
Significant resource needs remain in the metro area CSAH system. Revenues provided by
the Legislature for the CSAH system have resulted in a higher number of projects being
completed, however, greater pressure is being placed on municipalities to participate in
cost sharing activities, encumbering an already over-burdened local funding system.
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.
2015 Legislative Policies 53
Transportation
CSAH eligible roads were designated by county engineers in 1956 and although only 10
percent of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly 50 percent of
the vehicle miles traveled. The CSAH formula passed by the Legislature in 2008
increased the amount of CSAH funding for the metropolitan area from 18 percent in 2007
to 21 percent in 2011. The formula helps to better account for needs in the metropolitan
region, but is only the first step in addressing needs for additional resources for the
region.
Metro Cities supports a new CSAH formula more equitably designed to fund the
needs of our metropolitan region.
5-K Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
State statutes direct the Minnesota 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 community 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 appeals board are binding on
both the city and MnDOT.
Metro Cities opposes changes to current statutes that would allow MnDOT to
disregard the appeals board ruling for state trunk highways. Such a change would
significantly minimize MnDOT's need to negotiate in good faith with cities for
appropriate project access and alignment, and would render the public hearing and
appeals process meaningless. Metro Cities also opposes the elimination of the county
road municipal consent and appeal process for these reasons.
5-L Plat Authority
Current law grants 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 counties veto power or
that would shorten the 120-day review and permit process time.
5-M City Speed Limit Control
Cities are moving to incorporate multiple modes of transportation within existing right of
way through local Complete Streets policies on residential roads where traffic safety also
affects pedestrians and users of alternative transportation modes. Metro Cities supports
design standards that result in slower speeds on local roads. Any statutory speed
limit change must be uniform and provide adequate state funding for education and
enforcement to ensure public awareness and compliance.
At cities' or counties' discretion, Metro Cities also supports a year round reduction
54 2015 Legislative Policies
Transportation
of speed limits within 500 feet of any city or county parks and schools or on roads
that are in the process of becoming more residential or developed but do not
currently justify a reduction under a MnDOT sanctioned speed study.
5-N MnDOT Maintenance Budget
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. Cities should be compensated equitably for providing a service that traditionally
has been borne by the state. MnDOT should also be required to meet standards adopted
by cities through local ordinances or reimburse cities for labor, equipment and material
used on the state's behalf to improve public safety or meet local standards.
Metro Cities supports MnDOT taking full responsibility for maintaining state
owned infrastructure and property, including, but not limited to, sound walls and
right of way,within city limits.
5-0 Transit Taxing District
The transit taxing district, which funds the capital cost of transit service in the
Metropolitan Area through the property tax system, is inequitable. Because the
boundaries of the transit taxing district do not correspond with any rational service line
nor is being within the boundaries a guarantee to receive service, cities in the taxing
district or out of the taxing district are contributing unequally to the transit service in the
Metropolitan Area. This inequity should be corrected.
Metro Cities supports a stable revenue source to fund both the capital and operating
costs for transit at the Metropolitan Council. However, Metro Cities does not
support the expansion of the transit taxing district without a corresponding increase
in service and an overall increase in operational funds. To do so would create
additional property taxes without a corresponding benefit.
5-P Complete Streets
A complete street may include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special
bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and safe
crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions,
narrower travel lanes and more.
A complete street in a rural area will differ from a complete street in a highly urban area,
but both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road.
Metro Cities supports options in state design guidelines for streets that would give
cities greater flexibility to:
2015 Legislative Policies 55
Transportation
• Safely accommodate all modes of travel;
• Address storm water needs; and
• Ensure livability in the appropriate context for each city.
However, Metro Cities opposes state imposed mandates that would increase
street infrastructure improvement costs in locations and instances where
providing access for alternative modes including cycling and walking are
deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as determined by local jurisdictions.
56 2015 Legislative Policies
� xw Committee Rosters
� t
Housing & Economic Development
Julie Wischnack(Chair), Community Dev. Dir., Minnetonka
Gene Abbott, Councilmember, Savage
Patty Acomb, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Amy Baldwin, Economic Dev. Dir., Brooklyn Park
Karl Batalden, Housing&Econ. Dev. Coord., Woodbury
Kim Berggren, Dir. of Comm. Dev., Brooklyn Park
Sasha Bergman, Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Sr. Project Coord., Metropolitan Council
Amy Brendmoen, Councilmember, St. Paul
Bob Cardinal, Councilmember, Maplewood
Sheila Cartney, Planner/Comm. Dev. Dir., Rogers
Jeffrey Dahl, Asst. City Administrator, Chaska
Jenni Faulkner, Community Dev. Dir., Burnsville
Grant Fernelius, Community Dev. Dir., New Brighton
Marie Franchett, Project Mgr. Planning/Econ. Dev., St. Paul
Shannon Guernsey, Executive Director, MN NAHRO
Bryan Hartman, HRA Program Manager, Bloomington
Jon Hohenstein, Community Dev. Director, Eagan
Ed Iago, Councilmember, West St. Paul
Anne Kane, Community Dev. Dir., White Bear Lake
Margaret Kaplan, Dir. Comm. Dev., Minnesota Housing
Michael Leek, Community Dev. Dir. Shakopee
Melissa Lesch, Sr. Gov't Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Patricia Lindgren, Legislative Aide, St. Paul
Dean Lotter, City Manager, New Brighton
Lorrie Louder, Sr. VP-Business & IGR, St. Paul Port Authority
Logan Martin, City Administrator, Bayport
Anne Mavity, Councilmember, St. Louis Park
Joseph Murphy, Councilmember, Vadnais Heights
Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, Shorewood
Bruce Nordquist, Comm. Dev. Dir., Apple Valley
Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal
Loren Olson, Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Jen Peterson, Councilmember, Cottage Grove
2015 Legislative Policies 57
Committee Rosters
Terence Quigley, Councilmember, Shoreview
Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake
Dave Schaps, Asst. City Administrator, Oakdale
Mary Sherry, Councilmember, Burnsville
Steve Stahmer, City Administrator, Rogers
Bob Streetar, Community Development Dir., Oakdale
Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager, Roseville
Tony Wagner, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Metropolitan Agencies
Jo Emerson (Chair), Mayor, White Bear Lake
Susan Arntz, City Administrator, Waconia
Michelle Beaulieu, City Planner, St. Paul
Sasha Bergman, Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Sr. Project Coord., Metropolitan Council
Frank Boyles, City Manager, Prior Lake
Bob Cardinal, Councilmember, Maplewood
Vanessa Demuth, Councilmember, Rosemount
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator, Andover
Elizabeth Glidden, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley
Chuck Haas, Councilmember,Hugo
Dana Hardie, Admin. Services Dir., Burnsville
Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor, Burnsville
Mike Knight, Councilmember, Andover
Katie Knutson, Gov't. Relations, Assoc., St. Paul
Michael Leek, Community Dev. Dir., Shakopee
Melissa Lesch, Sr. Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Tom Link, Comm. Dev. Dir., Inver Grove Heights
Dean Lotter, City Manager,New Brighton
Lorrie Louder, Sr. VP-Business & IGR, St. Paul Port Authority
Tim McNeil, Mayor, Dayton
Mark Nagel, Asst. City Administrator, Elko New Market
Loren Olson, Gov't. Relations Rep.
Terry Schneider, Mayor, Minnetonka
Anne Smith, Councilmember, Lake Elmo
Ady Wickstrom, Councilmember, Shoreview
58 2015 Legislative Policies
Committee Rosters
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Danna Elling Schultz(Chair), Councilmember, Hastings
Sasha Bergman, Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Sr. Project Coord., Metropolitan Council
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
J.D. Burton, Dir. of Government Rel. Rep., St. Paul
Bob Cardinal, Councilmember, Maplewood
Mark Casey, City Manager, St. Anthony Village
Bill Coughlin, Councilmember, Burnsville
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director, Shorewood
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator, Andover
Lori Economy-Scholler, Chief Financial Officer, Bloomington
Marcia Glick, City Manager, Robbinsdale
Dana Hardie, Admin. Services Dir., Burnsville
Laurie Hokkanen, Assistant City Manager, Chanhassen
Susan Iverson, Dir. of Finance/Admin. Services, Arden Hills
Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence
Jim Keinath, City Administrator, Circle Pines
Merrill King, Finance Director, Minnetonka
Kathy Lantry, Councilmember, St. Paul
Tom Lawell, City Administrator, Apple Valley
Julie Linnihan, Finance Dir./City Clerk, Shakopee
Dean Lotter, City Manager,New Brighton
Kristi Luger, City Manager, Excelsior
Scott Lund, Mayor, Fridley
John McCarthy, Chief Budget Analyst, St. Paul
Melanie Mesko-Lee, City Administrator, Hastings
Justin Miller, City Administrator, Mendota Heights
Rebecca Olson, Asst. to the City Manager, Shoreview
Lori Peterson, HR Dir., Eagan
Don Rambow, Finance Dir., White Bear Lake
Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis
Bruce Sanders, Councilmember, Coon Rapids
Ryan Schroeder,Administrator, Cottage Grove
Josh Sprague, Councilmember, Edina
Kim Therres, Asst. City Manager/HR Dir., Crystal
Lisa Wieland, Finance Dir., Rogers
Dick Woodruff, Councilmember, Shorewood
2015 Legislative Policies 59
Committee Rosters
Transportation & General Government
Scott Lund (Chair), Mayor, Fridley
Steve Albrecht, Dir. Public Works/City Eng., Burnsville
Dick Allendorf, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Susan Arntz, City Administrator, Waconia
Kristin Asher, Engineer, Richfield
Geralyn Barone, City Manager, Minnetonka
Michelle Beaulieu, City Planner, St. Paul
Sasha Bergman, Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Sr. Project Coord., Metropolitan Council
Frank Boyles, City Manager, Prior Lake
Mary Brindle, Councilmember, Edina
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works, Shorewood
Heather Butkowski, City Administrator, Lauderdale
Bob Cardinal, Councilmember, Maplewood
Scott Cordes, Dir. Budget& Innovation, St. Paul
Steve Elkins, Council Member, Metropolitan Council
Danna Elling Schultz, Councilmember, Hastings
Mary Gaasch, Councilmember, Lauderdale
Steven Gallagher, Councilmember,Newport
Edwina Garcia, Councilmember, Richfield
Ruth Grendahl, Councilmember, Apple Valley
Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
Gary Hansen, Councilmember, Eagan
Tom Harmening, City Manager, St. Louis Park
James Hovland, Mayor, Edina
Jane Kansier, Asst. City Manager, Prior Lake
Dan Kealey, Councilmember, Burnsville
Karl Keel, Public Works Dir., Bloomington
Jean Keely, Engineer, Blaine
Mike Knight, Councilmember, Andover
Katie Knutson, Gov't. Relations Assoc., St. Paul
Denny Laufenburger, Councilmember, Chanhassen
Michael Leek, Comm. Dev. Dir, Shakopee
Kim Lindquist, Comm. Dev. Dir., Rosemount
Dean Lotter, City Manager,New Brighton
Lorrie Louder, Sr. VP-Business& IGR, St. Paul Port Auth.
John Maczko, Transportation Dir.-Public Works, St. Paul
Mark Maloney, Public Works Dir., Shoreview
Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Shakopee
Mike Mornson, City Manager, Hopkins
Paul Oehme, Engineer/Public Works Dir., Chanhassen
Loren Olson, Gov't. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Candy Petersen, Councilmember,North St. Paul
Becky Petryk, Councilmember, Hugo
60 2015 Legislative Policies
Committee Rosters
Gene Ranieri, Director of IGR, Minneapolis
Michael Ridley, City Planner, Eagan
Dan Ryan, Councilmember, Brooklyn Center
John Sachi, City Engineer, South St. Paul
Sue Sandahl, Councilmember, Richfield
Sue Sanger, Councilmember, St. Louis Park
Steve Schmidt, Councilmember, Anoka
Duane Schwartz, Public Works Dir., Roseville
Russ Stark, Councilmember, St. Paul
Dick Swanson, Councilmember, Blaine
Meg Tilley, Councilmember, Eagan
Bethany Tjornhom, Councilmember, Chanhassen
Kevin Watson, City Administrator, Vadnais Heights
Ady Wickstrom, Councilmember, Shoreview
Susan Young, Councilmember, Forest Lake
2015 Legislative Policies 61