HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.F.1. Metro Cities-Draft Legislative Policies
I~.F: L
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McN eilll City Administrator
SUBJECT: Metro Cities - Draft Legislative Policies
DATE: November 4, 2009
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is asked to endorse the draft 2010 Legislative Policies, as recommended by
the Metro Cities Legislative Policy Committees.
BACKGROUND:
Attached are legislative policies which are being provided by Metro Cities, which is an
association of Twin Cities-area municipalities that advocates for city interests at the
Legislature and before the Met Council. The policies are recommended after study by
four policy adoption committees, which are comprised of elected and appointed officials
from the cities. Upon Metro Cities' adoption, they will provide guidance for Metro Cities
staff when it deals with the legislature during the 2010 session.
In general, these policies are beneficial to metropolitan area cities. However, because of
the wide diversity of characteristics of the member cities, some of the policies may
benefit some cities more than others.
Annually, member cities are asked to adopt the Metro Cities' policies prior to its Annual
Meeting, which will be held later this month. However, if there are specific policies
with which individual cities as a whole have issues, a request for a general discussion
may be made at the Annual Meeting. There must be five cities in agreement of those in
attendance at the Metro Cities meeting for debate to be heard on the floor about any
specific policy.
Previously, the Metro Cities' position on eminent domain has generated discussion with
the City Council. This year's draft policy language is unchanged from last year.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council can choose to:
1. Endorse the Metro Cities Policies as drafted-
2. Endorse the policies, but, identify individual policies to ask to be removed for
comment at the Annual Meeting; or
3. Do not endorse the policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the policies be endorsed. If the Council has individual policies for
which they want to. comment at the Annual meeting, those should be identified for
discussion, and a consensus position reached.
RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING:
Endorsement ofthePolicies in general supports of all the City's goals and objectives (A-
E)
ACTION REQUIRED:
Unless the Council wants to identify specific policy issues to be debated at the Annual
Meeting, it should, by motion, endorse the 2010 Metro Cities draft Legislative Policies as
written.
iVv\[L~
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:cn
METRO CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
DATE: October 16,2009
TO: Metro Cities City Managers! Administrators,
Mayors and Councilmembers
FROM: Patricia Nauman, Executive Directf!}' r
RE: 2010 Proposed Legislative Policies
Enclosed are the proposed Metro Cities Legislative Policies for 2010. These policies
were created through Metro Cities' inclusive Policy Committee process and reflect
the consensus of the participants in that process. The policies will be adopted by the
full membership at our annual Policy Adoption Meeting, as described in the attached
brochure. Please review the policies and equally important, please be sure to attend
the Policy Adoption Meeting on November 19, 2009 at the Crowne Plaza 81. Paul-
Riverfront Hotel. For your review, the backside of this memo contains information
about our policy adoption process and protocol.
Each mayor, councilmember and manager/administrator has received a copy of the
proposed Legislative Policies. If you would like additional copies please contact
Laurie at (651) 215-4000 or Laurie@MetroCitiesMN.org Thank you.
145 University Ave W . St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. Phone (651) 215-4000. Fax (651) 281-1299. www.MetroCitiesMN.org
S~66
Metro Cities Policy Adoption Process and Protocol
In September of each year, Metro Cities' policy committees complete their work and staff
assembles the recommended policies for Board review. The Board reviews and adopts the
policies at its October meeting, and the policies are then forwarded to the full membership for
adoption at the November Policy Adoption meeting.
The following represents Metro Cities' policy adoption protocol:
. One vote per member city
. As the policies are introduced for consideration, the President of Metro Cities will
distinguish questions of clarification or explanation, and questions that could result in the
amendment of a policy
. The President will establish that individual policies can opened up for discussion if five
city delegates request a discussion
. Discussion on individual policies will be allowed, and limited to 10 minutes
. If the discussion results in a motion to amend a policy, the President will honor the
motion if five or more delegtltes 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 as per the process
outlined in Metro Cities' by-laws
. If there is no discussion, or following any vote(s) on individual policies, the President
will entertain a motion for adoption of the entire policy section
. Following the presentations of policies by the Policy Committee Chairs, members will be
asked to vote on the policies
. .
"t"t
'0"
METRO
CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, Minnesota 55103,,-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299
Website: www.MetroCitiesMN.org
. ,
Metro Cities
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: 651-215-4000 Website: www.MetroCitiesMN.org Fax: 651-281-1299
Staff members:
Patricia Nauman Todd Olson Kevin McHenry 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 Kevin@MetroCitiesMN.org Laurie@MetroCitieslvfN.org
. .
V Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue & Taxation (I)
State and Local Fiscal Relationship (I-A) 1
Levy Limits (I-B) 1
IXestrictions on Local Government Budgets (I-C) 2
Local Government Aid (LGA) (I-D) 2
Local Government Aid Study (I-E) 2
State Property Tax Relief Programs (I-F) 3
Market Value Homestead Credit (I-G) 3
Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value (I-H) 3
Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution (I-I) 3
Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Lirnits (I-J) 4
State property Tax (I-K) 4
Class Rate Tax System (I-L) 4
Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility (I-M) 4
Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases (I-N) 5
City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance (1-0) 5
Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) (I-P) 5
Aggregate Mining Fee (I-Q) 5
State Program Revenue Sources (I-R) 6
Post Employment Benefits (1-5) 6
2010 Legislative Policies i
.
Table of Contents
State Budget Stability (1- T) 6
Local Sales Taxes (I-D) 7
General Legislation (II)
Mandates & Local Authority (II-A) 9
City Enterprise Activities (II-B) 9
Firearms on City Property (II-C) 9
911 Telephone Tax (II-D) 9
800 MHz Radio System (II-E) 9
Building Codes (II-F) 10
Administra tiveFines (II -G) 10
Residential Care Facilities (II-H) 10
Annexation (II-I) 11
Rental Housing Ordinance Enforcement (II-J) 11
Housing & Economic Development (III)
Introduction 13
City Role in Housing (III-A) 13
City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing (III-B) 13
Inc1usionary Housing (III-C) 14
Metropolitan Council Housing Targets (III-D) 14
State Role in Affordable Housing (III-E) 15
Federal Role in Affordable Housing (III-F) 16
ii 2010 Legislative Policies
.
Table of Contents
Vacant and Boarded Properties (III-G) 17
Economic Development and Redevelopment (III-H) 18
Economic Development (III-H (1) 18
Redevelopment (III-H) (2) 19
Tax Increment Financing (III-I) 19
Eminent Domain (III-J) 21
This Old House/ This Old Shop (I1I-K) 22
Business Subsidy Policy (I1I-L) 22
Internet Technology (III-M) 22
City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable
Development (III-N) 23
Impaired Waters (III-G) 23
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
Purpose of Metropolitan Governance (N-A) 25
Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council (IV-B) 25
Selection of Metropolitan Council Members (IV -C) 26
Funding Regional Services (IV-D) 26
Regional Systems (IV-E) 26
Review of Local Comprehensive Plans (IV-F) 27
Local Zoning Authority (IV-G) 28
Regional Growth (IV-H) 28
2010 Legislative Policies iii
,
Table of Contents
Comprehensive Planning Schedule (IV-I) 29
Natural Resource Protection (IV-J) 30
Inflow and Infiltration (IlK) 30
Water Supply (IV-L) 31
Service Availability Charge (SAC) (IV-M) 32
Funding Regional Parks & Open Space (IV-N) 32
Livable COmIllunities (IV -0) 33
Density (IV-P) 33
Transportation (V)
Transportation and Transit Funding (V-A) 35
Regional Transit System (V -B) 35
Transit Operating Subsidies (V-C) 35
Street Improvement Districts (V -D) 36
Highway Turnbacks & Funding (V-E) 36
"3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials'
Role (V-F) 37
Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws (V -G) 37
Airport Noise Mitigation (V -H) 37
Cities Under 5,000 Population (V-I) 37
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution
Formula (V-J) 38
iv 2010 Legislative Policies
.
Table of Contents
Municipal Input! Consent fot Trunk Highways and
County Roads (V - K) 38
Plat Authority (V-L) 39
City Speed Limit Control (V-M) 39
Speed Limits Surrounding City Parks and Schools (V-N) 39
MnDOT Maintenance Budget (V -0) 39
Transit Taxing District (V-P) 39
Committee Rosters (VI)
2009 Housing & Economic Development Committee 41
2009 Metropolitan Agencies Conunittee 42
2009 Municipal Revenue & Taxation Committee 42
2009 Transportation & General Government Committee 43
2010 Legislative Policies v
Municipal Revenue &
Taxation(l)
I-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 between the state, its cities, and the public about the roles and
responsibilities of state and local governrnents. Metro Cities believes that the state and
local relationship is in decline, as expressed thro,ugh continued reductions in state aids
and credits, and increasingly unpredictable levels ofthose aids and credits. The
diminishment of the state and local partnership has forced the funding of city services to
be disproportionately reliant on the property tax and has placed an undue burden on city
cash flows. Increasingly, cities are also bearing more of the responsibility for the costs
of 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;
. Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to be
met, mandates to be funded, and that maintain our state's economic vitality and
competitiveness;
. Recognition that a 'one size fits all' system that limits cities to the property tax as the
major non-state aid revenue source does not fit all and to permit access to other tax
and revenue sources that are not currently accessible as well as oppose reductions or
limitations on the use of various license, development, or other general fees to pay for
related services;
1-8 levy Limits
Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits and urges the Legislature to repeal them. Levy
limits undermine local budgeting processes, planned growth, and the relationship
2010 Legislative Policies 1
MuniCipal Revenue & T axafion
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
circllmstaIlces.
I-C 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
lirnitations to the local government budget and taxing process.
1-0 l()cal Government Aid (LGA)
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 an over-reliance on the property tax. In recent yeflcrs, LGA
has been modified and reduced at a cost to many metropolitan area cities. Metro Cities
strongly opposes the continued reductions of Local Government Aid for the purpose of
balancing state budget deficits. Reductions to local government aids and credits have
been disproportionately greater than reductions made to other areas of the state budget
and undermine the goals of the LGA program.
As a result of the continued modifications and reductions to LGA in recent years, 68 of
the metropolitan area's 140 cities no longer receive LGA. Metro Cities supported the
LOA formula changes, the increase in the LGA appropriation and the inclusion of
inflationary factors that the Legislature adopted in 2008. However, the LGA formula
continues to be geographically disparate and volatile, and the level of funding inadequate
to support the goals of the LGA program.
Metro Cities supports the restoration of previous LGA cuts, adequate funding of the LOA
program and the continuation of LGA to those cities whose public service needs and
costs exceed their ability to pay. Metro Cities supports modifying the LOA formula to
address geographic disparities, and the needs of metro area cities not addressed through
the cUttent formula and distribution. Metro Cities fIclsosupports modifying LOA formula
floors and caps for the purpose of reducing annual payment distribution volatility.
I-E local Government Aid Study
Metro Cities supports the estflcblishment of an LGA study group, passed by the 2008
Legislature, to conduct an analysis of the LGA program thatJncludes an examination of
existing geographic disparities in the distribution of Local Government Aid, an analysis
of current need and capacity factors and consideration of alternative factors, an analysis
of the formula used to calculate aid for small cities, volatility in the local government aid
distribution and the impact of including the unique needs of rapidly growing cities on the
LOA formula. Metro Cities, further supports having the study group consider the LGA
program in the context of the overall state and local fiscal relationship.
2 2010 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
I-F 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. Metro Cities supports the update of the Department of
Revenue's "Voss" database to link income and property values, and the consideration of
income relative to property taxes paid in determining eligibility for state property tax
relief programs.
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.
I-G Market Value Homestead Credit
Metro Cities supports the Market Value Homestead Credit Program, a state aid to
individual homestead property taxpayers, as a direct credit to the taxpayer, rather than a
reimbursement to local units of government. The current MVHC reimbursement
structure undermines accountability in a number of ways, most directly by enabling the
state to reduce or even eliminate the reimbursement to local units of government while
preserving the benefit of the credit to the homeowner. Further, any savings to the state
resulting from reductions in the MVHC should be spread proportionally to all benefiting
taxpayers.
Metro Cities opposes state funding reductions to the current Market Value Homestead
Credit Program for the purpose of balancing state budget deficits, as these reductions
shift the burden for funding a state mandated program onto local governments. If the
state reduces funding for the program, there should be a corresponding reduction in the
credit received by the taxpayer.
I-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.
I-I Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Metro Cities opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan
programs since it results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the
public.
Metro Cities supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program until such time as
an appropriate replacement is developed. Metro Cities supports a state conducted
analysis of the Fiscal Disparities Program to determine whether the program is meeting
its original goals and objectives, and whether changes to the program should be
considered to better meet those objectives.
2010 Legislative Policies 3
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
I-J Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits
Metro Cities strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state
constitution. This would eliminate any flexibility on the part of the Legislature or local
governments to respond to unanticipated critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating
economic situations. When services such as education, public safety and health care
require increased funding beyond the overall limit, experiences in at least one other state
indicate that other publicly funded services receive less than adequate resources.
Constitutional limits result in a reduced base during times of economic downturn and the
inability to recover to previous service levels when economic prosperity returns.
I-K State Property Tax
The 2001 Property Tax Reform Act shifted general education funding to the state, and
funded it, in part, with a state property tax on commercial/industrial and cabin property.
Since cities' only source of general funds is the property tax, Metro Cities strongly
opposes extension of a state-levied property tax to additional classes of property. Metro
Cities supports efforts to have the state provide information on the property tax statement
regarding the state property tax.
I-l Class Rate Tax System
Metro Cities opposes elimination ofthecIass rate tax system, or applying'future levy
increases to market value, since this would further complicate the property tax system.
I-M Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
The Minnesota Department of Revenue has revised its regulations for calculating the
taxable market value of electric and natural gas utility property. This affects property
taxes paid by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) not only to the state, but also to local
governments. Provisions in the previous regulations, such as depreciation limits and
prescribed weights for the cost and income approaches to value, helped to preserve the
taxable value of this property over the many decades it is in service.
IOUs enjoy a guaranteed rate of return on their capital investments, but host cities
experience the costs of environmental damage, nuisance and lost economic development
as the result of this property. IODs argued that their property is over-valued and that
depreciation limits should be removed. However, changes to the utility property
valuation rules will drastically reduce the taxable market value that helps compensate
host cities for hosting base load. electric generation facilities.
Metro Cities opposes changes to the utility property valuation rules that result in a
significant decline in the taxable market value of utility property. Metro Cities supports
state appropriated aid to cities to keep them financially whole and to compensate for the
4 2010 Legislative Policies
MuniCipal Revenue & Taxation
economic and environmental costs of hosting base load electric generation facilities,
rather than through increases in property class rates or other mechanisms.
I-N Sales Tax on local Government Purchases
State law currently requires local governments, with the exception of public schools,
nursing homes, hospitals and public libraries, to pay sales taX. The law exempts certain
local government units from some specific purchases such as ambulance vehicles and
equipment, road and bridge maintenance, emergency rescue vehicles, and others. Metro
Cities supports a reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for all local government
purchases, since such charges represent a double tax upon our citizens.
1-0 City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance
Metro Cities opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds
are necessary to maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs,
purchase capital goods and infrastructure, provide, adequate cash flow and maintain high
level bond ratings.
I-P Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA)
Metro Cities supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary
contribution increases. Metro Cities also supports state assistance to local governments to
cover any additional contribution burdens placed on cities over and above contribution
increases required by employees. Cities should receive sufficient notice of these incr~ases
so that they may take them into account for budgeting purposes. Further, Metro Cities
will monitor legislative proposals and when necessary and appropriate, respond in a
manner that supports this policy and provides for the fair treatment of employees and the
protection of municipalities' interests.
I-Q Aggregate Mining Fee
In order to provide an incentive for the extraction of local aggregate resources prior to
urbanized development, and in order to help offset the negative impacts of aggregate
mining on local c01111l1unities, the state should authorize cities and townships to collect a
per ton host community fee from the operatorS of aggregate mines with the fee proceeds
to be deposited in the municipality's general fund.
The 2008 Legislature adopted an Aggregate Resource Preservation Act as_an incentive
for the extraction of local aggregate resources prior to urbanized development, as well as
a modified tax structure that requires 42.5% of the aggregate tax to be distributed to host
cities and tOwl1ships. Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to assist aggregate host
cities in offsetting".the negative impacts of aggregate mining on local C01111l1unities.
Metro Cities would prefer that cities and tOWllships be allowed to collect a per ton host
c01111l1unity fee from the operators of aggregate mines with the fee proceeds to be
deposited in the municipality's general fund. The Legislature may wish to consider an
examination ofthe negative impacts of aggregate mining on cities adjacent to host cities.
2010 Legislative Policies 5
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
I-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.
I-S Post Employment Benefits
Metro Cities supports statutory authority allowing local governments to establish trusts
from which to fund post-employment health and life insurance benefits for public
employees, with participation by cities on a strictly voluntary basis, in recognition that
cities have differing local needs anp circumstances. Cities should also retain the ability
to determine the level of post employment benefits to be provided to employees.
Metro Cities supports a study of the fiscal impacts to both cities and retirees of pooling
retirees separately from active employees.
I-T State Budget Stability
F or the last several years, the State has experienced budget deficits and increased
volatility in state revenues. To address state budget shortfalls, the Legislature and
Governor have focused their efforts on reductions in expenditures, shifting of costs to
other units of government, and drawing down the state budget reserve.
In 2007, the Legislature and Governor created the State Budget Trends Study
Commission to study the implications of state demographic trends on the state's tax base
and revenue collections, as well as trends in spending for state programs. The
Commission was charged with examining the state budget with regard to budget stability
and flexibility and may make recommendations for state tax and budget changes that
include changes in the tax base, mix of tax types, state and local finance relationships,
entitlements and the budget structure. The Commission released a report of its findings
to the 2009.Legislature, identifying several major demographic and fiscal trends and
recommendations to address achieving balance in state revenues and expenditures and
managing state budget volatility.
Metro Cities supports the work of the State Budget Trends Study Commission and urges
the Legislature to implement changes to enhance and improve stability, flexibility and
adequacy in our state's revenue system. Metro Cities also supports an examination of the
property tax system and the relationships between state and local tax bases.
6 2010 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
I-U local Sales Taxes
Metro Cities opposes the legislative moratorium prohibiting political subdivisions from
advertising, promoting or expending funds for the purposes of imposing a local option
sales tax until May 21,2010 and would urge the Legislature to repeal this moratorium.
2010 Legislative Policies 7
~ General Legislation (II)
.~
II..A Mandates & Local Authority
Metro Cities opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create
mandated additional tasks requiring neW or added local costs without a corresponding
state appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates potentially cause
increased property taxes which impede cities' ability to fund traditional service needs.
II..B City Enterprise Activities
Metro Cities supports cities having the authority to establish city enterprise operations in
response to community needs, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure residents'
quality of life. Creation of an enterprise operation allows a city to provide the desired
service while maintaining financial and management control. The state should refrain
from infringing on this ability to provide and control services for the benefit of
community residents.
II-C Firearms on City Property
Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns in city-owned buildings, facilities and
parks. This would allow locally elected officials to determine whether to allow permit-
holders to bring guns into municipal buildings, liquor stores, city council chaIIlbers and
city sponsored youth activities. It is not Metro Cities' intention for cities to have the
authority to prohibit legal weapons. in parking lots, on city streets or city sidewalks.
11..0 911 Telephone Tax
Public safety answering points (PSAPs) must be able to continue to rely on state 911
revenues to pay for upgrades and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and
operational support, and dispatcher training. State funding should also support the
technology and training needed to provide the number and location of wireless and voice
over internet protocol (V oIP) calls to 911 on computer screens and transmit that data to
police, fire and first responders.
II..E 800 MHz Radio System
Metro Cities supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board
(previously the Metropolitan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800
MHz radio system, as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or
become a part of the 800 MHz Radio System until they so choose. Metro Cities further
urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to obtain required
infrastructure and subscriber equipment (portable and mobile radios) as well as provide
funding for operating costs, since the prime purpose of this system is to allow public
safety agencies and other units of government the ability to communicate effectively.
2010 Legislative Policies 9
General Legislation
II-F Building Codes
In spite of the serious downturn in the construction economy, thousands of new housing
units have been constructed annually in the metro area, and when the economy rebounds,
building will resume. Structural and water intrusion problems have surfaced in many
houses and cOl11IIlercial buildings built in the last 20 years. These problems have resulted
in dissatisfied homeowners and conflicts between the state, builders and cities.
Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the newly created
Consttuction Code Fund, with proportional distribution based on the area of enforcement
where the fees were received. Metro Cities further supports a joint effort by the state,
cities and builders to collectively identify appropriate uses for the fund, including
education, analysis of new materials and construction techniques, building code updating,
building inspector training, development of performance standards and identification of
construction "best practice~." Metro Cities does not support legislative solutions that fail
to recognize the interrelationships between builders, state building codes and cities.
II-G Administrative Fines
Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with increasing
costs to local units of goverllment. The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate
those costs. Metro Cities supported the passage of the 2009 legislation giving cities the
authority to issue administrative fines for defined local traffic offenses. Metro Cities
continues to support cities' authority to use administrative fines for regulatory
ordinances, such as buiiding 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.
II-H Residential Care Facilities
Sufficient fundihg 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~fa1l1ily housing for this purpose. Cities do not have
the authority to regulate the locations of group homes and residential care facilities.
Cities have reasonable cohcerns 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 c.are 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
10 2010 Legislative policies
General Legislation
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..Cities should
have statutory authority to require licensed agencies and licensed providers that operate
residential care facilities to notify the city of properties being operated as residential care
facilities. The Legislature should also require the establishment of non-concentration
standards for residential care facilities to prevent clustering and require the appropriate
county agencies to enforce these ruleS.
II-I Annexation
The 2006 Legislature created the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Task Force to study
and make recommendations on what, if any, changes should be made to the law
govenring mtihicipal boundary adjustments. The task force was charged with developing
reconunendations regarding best practices annexation training for city and township
officials to better communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. The report from
the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Task Force to study and make recommendations on
what, ifany, changes should be made to the law governing municipal boundary
adjustments was published in February of2009. 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 cre.ating best practices.
Metro Cities supports continued legislative investigations into developing
recommendations regarding best practices annexation training for city and township
officials to better comnmnicate and jointly plan potential annexations.yurther, Metro
Cities supports substantive changes to the state's annexation law 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.
II-J Rental 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 mUIlicipality 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 creation of a task force by the Department of Labor and
Industry to investigate a solution to ordinance and state building code conflicts.
2010 Legislative Policies 11
.
^ Housing & ..... .... .. .... ..... ....
" ~,r, Economic
,~ ,. I
" \~
~1 ~~ Development (III)
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
L_______.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 fa.cilitating the
production and preservation of affordable housing in Minnesota.
Metro Cities' housing policies recognize and support the intergovernmental nature of this
issue - including participation from federal, state, regional and local governlllents. Cities
are responsible for much of the ground-level housing policy in Minnesota ~ including
land-use planning, building; code enforcement, and often times the packaging of financial
incentives. However, the State and Metropolitan Council must also playa major role by
empowering local units of government and providing a variety of funding programs and
tools.
III-A City Role in Housing
In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector,
market-driven activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via
responsibilities in the areas of land-use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision
regulations. Many cities take on a significant administrative burden in order to play an
additional role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in
state and regional housing programs and supporting either local or countywide Housing
and Redevelopment Authorities. Cities are also responsible for ensuring the health and
safety of local residents and the structural soundness and livability of the local housing
stock via building permits and inspections.
Metro Cities strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority
to carry out these functions in a locally determined manner.
111-8 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 cOlllmunities and the region. Cities can facilitate the
production and preservation of affordable and lifecycle housing by:
. Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
.. Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new
and existing neighborhoods;
. Expediting review processes;
2010 Legislative Policies 13
,
Housing & Economic Development
. Working to reduce locally imposed development costs; and
. Using available regulatory mechanisms to shape housing communities.
III-C Inclusionary Housing
Metro Cities supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed-use
neighborhoods throughout a city. However, Metro Cities does not support passage of a
mandatory inclusionary housing law that would require a certain percentage of units in all
new housing developments to be affordable to households at a particular income level
because these units can't be produced without a deep developer subsidy or cross-
subsidization from the other houses in the development.
While Metro Cities believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory
reform, density bonuses, and fee waivers, Metro Cities does not believe a mandatory
inclusionary housing approach can achieve the desired levels of affordability solely
through these steps. The Metropolitan Council, in creating its affordable housing targets,
must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council
should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct
financial assistance and/or advocating for additional resources through the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency.
111-0 Metropolitan Council Housing Targets
In advance ofthe 2008 Comprehensive Plan deadline and in response to projected growth
in the Metro Area, the Metropolitan Council created a methodology to determine how
many affordable housing units would be needed and where those units should go. From
that process, each metro area city was assigned an affordable housing "target". Further,
Met Council Comprehensive Plan guidance instructs cities to guide sufficient land to
accommodate the "targets".
Metro Cities supports the creation of a variety of housing opportunities for people.
However, providing affordable and lifecycle housing is a shared responsibility between
the private sector and government at all levels, including the federal government, state
government and Metropolitan Council. Land economics, construction costs and
infrastructure needs create barriers to the creation of affordable housing that cities cannot
overcome without assistance.
Therefore, Metro Cities supports a Metropolitan Council affordable housing policy that
recognizes the following tenets:
. The Council's housing policies characterize individual city housing numbers as
targets or a range of needs in the community.
14 2010 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
. Cities need sigtlificant financial assistance from the federal and state governrtient,
as well as the Metropolitan Council, in order to make progress toward creating
additional affordable housing;
. Public transit infrastructure and the provision of affordable housing are
connected. Therefore, the Council should provide resources for public transit
infrastructure in order to enhance opportunities for affordable housing;
. Absent significant resources to assist cities, the Met Council will not hold cities
responsible if the "targets" can't be met;
. The formula, and the methodology used to create it, should be routinely evaluated
to deterIi1ine if market conditions have changed or if underlying conditions should
prompt readjustment of the formula;
. The formula should continue to reflect the balance and breadth of existing
affordable housing stocks; and
. The Council should engage in a "post" project analysis in order to measure the
effectiveness of that project.
III-E State Role in Affordable Housing
Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the
state establishes general direction and prioritization of housing issues. The state
financially supports a variety of housing types including homeless shelters, transitional
housing, supportive housing, senior housing, and family housing. The state must continue
to be an active partner in addressing lifecycle and affordable housing issues.
Metro Cities supports:
. Increase funding, including state general funds and, possibly, alternate sources
of revenue, for programs that support lifecycle, affordable housing, and
transitional and emergency housing. The state should consider establishing a
non-competitive program to create a pipeline to match city-subsidized
affordable housing projects; .
. Support housing programs that assist housing development throughout the
low-to-moderate income range;
. As a means of reconciling affordable housing with community development
goals, Metro Cities supports housing programs designed to develop market
rate housing in areas with high concentrations of affordable housing, where
the private market might not otherwise invest;
2010 Legislative Policies 15
Housing 8. Economic Development
. Continue the policy of using MHF A's investment eatnings for housing
programs;
. Metro Cities will monitor the debate regarding bonding allocation and tax
credit programs to ensure city input into state legislation involving distribution
of tax credits and tax exempt bonding;
. Provide exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes
applied to the development and production of affordable housing;
. Authorize cities to amend their comprehensive plans, in order to facilitate
increased lifecycle and affordable housing, with a simple majority vote of all
members of the city council, rather than a super majority;
. Consider providing state tax credits to incent cross-subsidized affordable units
in a market rate development project. This incentive could be used in
conjunction with city, regional, or other state incentives; and
. Consider the use of state bond proceeds and other appropriations for land
banking and land trusts.
III-F Federal Role ill Affordable Housing
Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels
of funding for affordable housing. Federal investment in affordable housing will increase
the supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as increase the inter-jurisdictional
collaboration between the two levels of government. Federal funding plays a critical role
in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to maintain and increase affordable
housing throughout the state. Metro Cities strongly encourages the following:
. To preserve and increase funding for the Community Development Block
Grant Program 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;
. To commit resources to Section 8 funding. It is a flexible, cost effective, and
successful program that has helped nearly two million families find housing
through promotion of self..sufficiency and stability; and
16 2010 Legislative Policies
,
Housing 8. Economic Development
. To support federal funding to provide short-term assistance for HRAs in order
to facilitate the sale of tax-exempt bonds.
III..G Vacant and Boarded Properties
There has been an epidemic of mortgage foreclosures in the state. While the first wave of
defaulted sllb prime mortgages has crested, the second wave of Alt -A mortgage defaults
is predicted to be even more dramatic. Federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program
dollars were estimated to contribute only a fraction of the cost of neighborhood rec.overy
efforts following the first wave leaving communities financially unprepared to deal with
the second wave.
While mortgage foreclosures ate responsible for a significant 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;
. Expedite 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;
. Identification of the various causes of vacant and boarded properties;
. Provide tools that allow cities to acquire vacant and boarded properties before
deterioration and vandalism result in unsalvageable structures, including increases
eminent domain flexibility; and
201 0 Legislative Policies 17
Housing & Economic Development
. Registration of vacant and boarded properties, if this is deemed to be an effective
approach to dealing with the problem.
III-H Economic Developrnent and Redevelopment
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. 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 ofgovernrnent responsible for the
implementation of economic development, redevelopment policies and land use controls.
State assistance to cities for development is required in two broad areas: (1) Economic
Development - direct business assistance; and (2) RedevelopmentlDevelopment - real
estate development. They are not mutually exclusive-some projects require a boost on
both counts.
UI-H (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 (po'sitive or
negative) of "spin-off development" or business development that is ancillary and
supportive of the primary business:
. 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 between cities, companies and
University of Minnesota;
. Development of green opportunities for green job development and related
innovation and entrepreneurship; and
. Regional CompetitiVeness Project, a two year project that is a collaboration of the
Regional Council of Mayors and the Business and Workforce investment Boards
(DBED) with the goal of implementing a regional economic and workforce
development competitiveness strategy for short and long-term economic growth.
18 2010 Legislative Policies
Housing 8. Economic Development
III-H (2) Redevelopnumt
Redevelopment involves the development ofland 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;
. 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,
including increased flexibility in the use of TIF for this purpose;
. 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; and
. State adoption of an income tax credit program to facilitate the preservation of
historic properties.
III-I 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.
2010 Legislative PolicieS 19
Housing & Economic Development
The 2006 eminent domain changes will make redevelopment significantly more
expensive in some cases, and impossible in others. The cumulative impact of TIP
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 acceletate
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 occurs or is
unlikely to be optimaL
Metro Cities urges the Legislature to:
. Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain or directly ot
indirectly reduce the effectiveness ofTIF;
. 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.
. Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit related TIF districts to in order
to shape development around transit stations but not for construction or
maintenance of the public transit itself;
. 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;
20 2010 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
. 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; and
. Metro Cities encourages the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more
efficient and streamlined reporting process.
III-J Eminent Domain
Eminent domain law changes made by the 2006 Legislature resulted in a significant
philosophical and legal shift in Minnesota. Whereas prior to 2006, Minnesota law
provided extensive deference to local g()vernments, statutory chlll1ges 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 teffil economic vitality of our cities is dependent on the
ability of a city, its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent.
Reinvestment and reinvention strategies can occasionally conflict with the priorities of
individual residents or business owners. Eminent domain is a critical tool in the
reinvestment and reinvention process and without it; our cities will be allowed to
deteriorate to unprecedented levels before the public will be able to react. Metro Cities
strongly encourages the Governor and Legislature to revisit the 2006 eminent domain
changes to allow local governments to 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;
. Add a definition of "foreclosed property" to Chapter 117 that would include
residential or commercial properties and would include the remedy of these
properties in the public purpose section;
. Review the new compensation and relocation provisions to determine whether
they are reasonable and if they are fair to individuals and the public; and
2010 Legislative Policies 21
Housing 8< EConomic Development
. Allow for modifications to the effective date language in the 2006 legislation in
order to accomIIlodate delays in project schedules that are beyond the control of
the acquiring authority.
III..K This Old Housel This Old Shop
Metro Cities supports the reenactment of the "This Old House" law, which allowed
owners of older homestead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting
from repairs of improvements to the home. In particular, "This Old House", or a similar
program, should be reauthorized as an incentive for re-occupying and homesteading
foreclosed or vacant homes.
Metro Cities also supports passage of similar legislation for owners of older
commercial/industrial property that make improvements that increase the property's
market value by at least 12%.
III-l Business Subsidy Policy
Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the
Business Subsidy Act during the next legislative session, but should look to technical
changes that would stream line both state and local processes and procedures. The
legislature should distinguish between development subsidies and redevelopment
activities. In addition, in order to ensure cohesive and comprehensive regulations, the
legislature should limit regulation of business subsidies to the Business Subsidy Act.
III-M Internet Technology
Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs
and availability oftraditional infrastructure~roads, rail, utilities, etc.~the new economy
is increasingly dependent on reliable, redundant, cost effective, high bandwidth
telecommunications capabilities; While the United States was once a leader among
"wired" economies, its position has slipped dramatically as other countries have
facilitated investments in fiber-optic deployment (fiber to the premises), commitments to
true high speed internet capacity(lOO mb to 1 gb) and improved networks (Internet 2).
Recognizing that there is a policy debate regarding the role of government versus private
telecomIIlunications companies in implementing; the next generation of internet
capability, bringing about such capabilities is increasingly important to insure that U.S.
companies in general and Minnesota companies in particular can compete effectively in
the global economy.
Metro Cities endorses comprehensive and regional strategies to stimulate the
implementation of high speed, reliable and cost effective internet service that is available
throughout the state.
22 2010 Legislative Policies
Housing & Economic Development
III-N 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.
111-0 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. Metro Cities supports the goals of the Clean Water Act and efforts
at both the federal and state 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;
. TMDL development;
. Storm water construction grants; and
. Wastewater construction grants.
2010 legislative Policies 23
~ Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
The statutorily-defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of 193 cities and
tOWnships covering over 3,000 square miles in seven counties. The effective and
efficient delivery of certain public services and the continued economic growth of this
region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to provide coordination and
facilitate cooperation.
Therefore, Metro Cities supports the continued existence of a metropolitan governance
system for the purpose of:
. Facilitating long-term region-wide planning with the cooperation and
consideration of the affected local units of government; and
. Planning for and providing those public services that are needed by the region, but
cannot be effectively and efficiently provided by local goverrunents or the state.
With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists today, the region needs some entity
to perform these functions. However, the Twin Cities' metropolitan Governance structure
should not be granted, nor should it assume, general local goverrunent or state agency
powers.
IV-B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
. Plan for the orderly and economical development ofthe metropolitan area by
preparing a comprehensive development guide that includes long'-range
comprehensive policy plans for the transportation/aviation, wastewater treatment
and recreational open space systems;
. Review local comprehensive plans for compatibility with the plans of neighboring
communities, consistency with Metropolitan Council policies and conformity
with metropolitan system plans.
. Provide specific regional services and administer select regional grant programs
as assigned by state or federal law.
. Provide technical assistance, research and information to local units of
goverrunent.
2010 Legislative Policies 25
Metropolitan Agencies
Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council's role, through the regional development guide
and its accompanying policy plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities
with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. Local governments are
ultimately responsible for zoning, land use planning and development decisions within
their borders.
Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to the Metropolitan
Council should be limited to a specific statutory assignment, or grant.
. Metro Cities supports a comprehensive analysis of the Metropolitan Council's
current authority and governance structure, activities, services and geographical
jurisdiction. The analysis should include participation by local officials.
IV-C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open process that
includes an opportunity for local governments and other stakeholders to provide
meaningful input. Council members should understand and be responsive to the districts
they represent while also serving the best interests of the region. Metropolitan Council
members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
IV-D Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities
through a combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants.
. The Metropolitan Council should set user fees via an open process that includes
public notices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user
and set at a level that supports effective and efficient public services based on
commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to
ensure long-term service and fee stability.
. Metro Cities supports the use of user fees and property taxes to fund regional
projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or
tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return.
. Metro Cities supports user fees for regional projects so long as the fees are not
used to coerce a particular response from cities.
. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they
are collected.
26 2010 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
IV-E Regional Systems
Regional systems are currently defined in statute as transportation (with aviation),
wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems
and the Metropolitan Council's authority for them is clearly outlined in state statute. In
order to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan
Council must seek a statutory change.
The system plans/statements prepared by the Metropolitan Council for these regional
systems should be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional
investments in order to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System
plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency
and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than not to have a
substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.
Additional regional systems should only be established if there is a compelling
metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation.
Common characteristics of the four existing regional systems include public ownership of
the system and its components and an established regional or state funding source. These
characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be established.
Water supply does not meet these criteria.
IV-F Review of local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council
should:
. Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local
plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a
substantial departure from one of the four system plans;
. Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan
amendments and development applications;
. Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for
substantial impact on systems plans;
. Require the information needed for the ,Metropolitan Council to complete its
review, but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is
required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUPA);
. When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met
Council's systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that
includes a peer review and encourages cities and the Met Council to work in a
cooperative and timely fashion toward the resolution of outstanding issues. Metro
2010 Legislative Policies 27
Metropolitdh Agencies
.
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.
. Conceming 'flexible' residential development and achieving consistency with the
Metropolitan Council's system plans and policies, Metro Cities supports the
Metropolitan Council working with affected cities and other organizations such as
the Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, and other
relevant stakeholders to identify common ground as well as potential conflicts
between respective goals for flexible development.
IV-G local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions, which ate the
implementation of cities' comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the
approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. Metro Cities
strongly opposes the creation of any appeals boards with the authority to supersede city
zoning decisions.
IV-H Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecasts project an additional 930,000 people and
460,000 households for the seven-county metropolitan area by the year 2030.
Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility in planning for sustainable growth patterns
that integrate transportation, housing, parks, open space and economic development 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.
In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate
state and regional financial resources and incentives, and maximUIn flex.ibility 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 accoIlUIlodate 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;
. New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second-
ring suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment.
28 2010 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of
regional policies:
. The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly
in the areas of transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing
development, and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for
regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be responsible for
meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council.
. The Metropolitan Council must work to pursue levels of state and federal
transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and
transit needs in the metropolitan area.
. The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and
continue to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives-based manner, and
. Metropolitan counties, including the collar counties and school districts, must be
brought more thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of
facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in accommodating
forecasted growth.
. Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region
extends beyond the traditional seven-county area and the need to work
collaboratively with the twelve adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin,
and the cities within those counties. The region faces environmental,
transportation, and land-use issues that cannot be solved by the seven-county
metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an analysis to determine the impacts of
Metropolitan Council's growth management policies and infrastructure
investments on the growth and development of the collar counties, and the
impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area.
IV~I 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.
Any future changes to the schedule for local comprehensive planning should be
accompanied by the statutory establishment of a complementary schedule for regional
planning. This schedule should:
(1) protect cities from being forced into a state of perpetual planning in response to
regional actions; and;
(2) ensure sufficient time for cities to understand and incorporate regional policies
into their local planning efforts.
2010 Legislative Policies 29
Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities recognizes that there is merit in 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 supports a 10-year time frame for comprehensive plan submissions.
IV-J Natural Resource Protection
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an
inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of
providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance.
However, any additional steps taken by the Metropolitan Council regarding the protection
of natural resources must recognize that:
. The state has a significant role to play in the protection of natural resources-
especially when those resources are significant to a multi~county area that is home
to more than 50 percent of the state's population and a travel destination for many
more. Given the limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the
metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan
communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for
financing and protecting these resources. Metro Cities urges the state and/or the
Metropolitan Council to provide financial assistance for the preservation of
regionally significant natural resources.
. The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRIlA)
is not a regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive
plans under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act.
. The protection of natural resources will have to be balanced with the need to
accommodate growth and development, reinvest in established communities,
encourage more affordable housing and provide transportation and transit
connections. Decisions about the zoning or land~use designations of specific
parcels of land not already contained within a public park, nature preserve or
other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of
government.
IV-K Inflow and Infiltration (III)
The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Plan established an 1/1
surcharge in 2007 on cities that are determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts
of storm water to the MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently 46 cities have been
30 2010 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
identified as excessive 1/1 contributors. This number is subject to change, depending on
rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area could be affected.
While Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling III because it affects the
size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive III in
one city can affect development capacity of another city that lies down pipe, we are
concerned about the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs, and
decreasing benefits, in their on-going efforts to mitigate excessive III. Metro Cities
opposes the 'demand' charge that is set to occur once the surcharge program expires.
Instead, Metro Cities would encourage the Metropolitan Council to work with cities to
establish a process for reaching agreed upon benchmarks to reduce inflow and
infiltration. The benchmarks should be detel1llined using a data-supported definition of
excessive III, and adequate and verifiable flow data that is updated regularly
Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program, and encourages the
Metropolitan Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area III mitigation
through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation.
Further, Metro Cities supports state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area
cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal
wastewater collection systems.
IV-l Water Supply
The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out planning activities
to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. The Water Supply Advisory
Committee, whose members include five municipal officials, began its work in January
2006. Its work includes analyzing technical water supply/use data, the development of a
master metro area water supply plan, recommendations for clarifying roles of local,
regional and state governments and streamlining and consolidating approval processes,
and recOffill1endations for funding future planning and capital investments.
The advisory coffill1ittee completed Phase I of its work in December 2006, and submitted
a report to the Legislature in January, 2007, and Phase II of its work, the development of
a Master Water Supply Plan in March, 2009. That plan was given provisional approval
until November, 2009. Metro Cities supports the plan as drafted, as a framework for
assisting and guiding communities in their water supply planning, without usurping local
decision making processes. As the plan is implemented, many cities will conduct their
own analyses for use in water supply planning. Local studies should be given equal
weight in regional water supply planning.
In addition to the Metropolitan Council, there are currently at least five state agencies
with water related jurisdiction. There are also several federal agencies involved in water
issues. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council activities associated with
clarifying local, regional and state water supply roles. Metro Cities encourages the
Metropolitan Council to consider the inter-relationships of wastewater treatment, storm
2010 Legislative Policies 31
Metropolitan Agencies
water management and water supply. Metro Cities also supports on-geing analytical
werk that will help streamline and consolidate the myriad and often conflicting water
supply permitting processes. Any state and regional regulations and processes sheuld be
explicit 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
govern111ent. Metre Cities further supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to
assist with municipal water supply projects.
Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the
water supply arena. Metro Cities further opposes the elevation of water supply to
"Regional System" status, or the assumption of Met Council control and management of
municipal water supply infrastructure. At this time, we oppose any regional taxes or fees
for water supply planning.
IV-M Se.rvice Availability Charge (SAC)
The Met Council adopted changes to its SAC program in 2006 that will be implemented
in 2010. Under the new changes, when a redeveloping property's new use requires lower
wastewater capacity than what was used in the prior seven years, SAC credits are. limited
to the amount needed on the site for the new use. A property developing at the same or
lesser wastewater demand will not incur SAC nor get credits.
Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, simplification and lower
rates. Under a no-net-credit structure, Metro Cities supports a baseline 'look back' of
seven yearS; 10 yeats for phased developments and longer time lines to be decided on a
case by case basis for redevelopment projects thaUnvolve extenuating circumstances.
Metro Cities also supports a start date of2010 to allow cities adequate time to determine
and use existing SAC credits.
Metro Cities supported modifications to SAC rules adopted by the Metropolitan Council
in 2008 that allow for a voluntary transfer of SAC credits from one metro city to another
and from one site to another within a city, for projects that, without the credits, would
mean that a business would move its operations out of state, with the following
conditions: that the business be required to provide a written "but for" certification
indicating that without the transfer the business would move its operations out of state,
that such trahsfers are strictly voluntary, that transfers be part ofa package of state
incentives and that cities being requested to transfer SAC credits be notified of the
request at the start of any development negotiations.
/
Metro Cities supported this change with the understanding that these transfers will be
limited to economic development projects with statewide significance and as such are
likely to occur only in rare circumstances.
Because of the economic recession, SAC revenues are in a steep decline and the
Metropolitan Council recently adopted changes to its SAC program model to stabilize the
SAC fund. While Metro Cities appreciates the challenges facing the SAC reserve fund,
32 2010 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
we recoI11tl1ended that the COUIlcil approve these changes provisionally, with a thtee year
phase in and the establishment of a task force to comprehensively eXan1ine the SAC
financing structure and provide recommendations on SAC financing for the long telm.
The alterations to the SAC funding structure are potentially significant, and represent a
shift in the funding of SAC costs. As such, they warrant a comprehensive analysis and
consideration of options for the SAC progtam. The Metropolitan Council approved the
forrt1ula changes with a three year phase in approach, and will establish a stakeholder task
force that includes local officials.
IV-N Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state
parks. Therefore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition,
development and improvement of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of
the operating budget for regional parks.
IV-Q Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and
provides a volUIltary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development,
brown field clean up and mixed-use, transit-friendly development and redevelopment.
Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely
accepted and is fully utilized by local cOmIllunities. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA
progtan1 has generated billions of dollars of private and public iIlvestinent, created
thousands of jobs and added thousands of affordable housing units in the region.
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the
livable cOIl1Il1unities demonstration accoUIlt in order to assist cOmIllunities with
development that may not be exclusively market driven 01' market proven in their
particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment
goals. Metro Cities opposes changes to this program that constrain flexibility around
program requirements and criteria.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the Livable Communities Demonst1'ation
Account }>rogram to reflect the linkages among the LCDA and municipal objectives and
goals and Met Council systems objectives and goals. Metro Cities also supports statutory
changes to assUre that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the LCDA
program.
Metro Cities strongly opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Program
and the transfer or use of these funds for other program areas.
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.
2010 Legislative Policies 33
Metropolitan Agencies
IV-P Density
Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy that bases density
projections on actual development patterns, is flexible, and accommodates cities at
various development stages. Any Met Council density policy must take into account the
impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities.
34 2010 Legislative Policies
Transportation (V)
V-A Transportation and Transit Funding
Metro Cities supported passage of the 2008 Transportation Finance bill. This legislation
allows for necessary resources for MnDOT, the county road system and the MSA road
system, and will help make up for the lack of state resources over the last twenty years.
Metro Cities was proud to be part of the effort to secure this base level funding.
However,the resources contained in the transportation finance bill represent only half of
the need in our counties, cities and state. Metro Cities recognizes the need for additional
transportation funding statewide, and will continue to advocate for additional resources to
maintain our transportation infrastructure. In addition, cities still lack the authority to use
additional tools for city street improvements; such resources continue to be restricted to
property taxes and special assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority be
granted to municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax
system.
V-B Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that
serves both commuters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed
of a mix of HOV lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, express and regular route bus service,
exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corridors designed to connect
residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be
regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the
region's changing travel patterns.
Metro Cities strongly supported the 'i'4 cent sales tax which was passed by the 2008
Legislature. This tax will be levied in the Metropolitan Area and dedicated to transit.
The sales tax represents a commitment to investment in our region's transit ways. It will
be important to direct these revenues purposefully, and to avoid subsidizing areas of
transit funding that are the responsibility of the Legislature and Metropolitan Council.
Metro Cities is 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.
V-C Transit Operating Subsidies
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding
to include rail transit and dedicated bus ways. Any operating subsidies necessary to
support this system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The
property taxpayers of individual cities and counties should not be singled out too/fund the
2010 Legislative Policies 35
.
Transportation
operation of specific transit lines or routes of service within this regional system. The
Metropolitan Council must find a stable and growing revenue source to fund the
operating budget for Metro Transit. MVST revenue projections have not been reliable
and as a result the Met Council is continuing to operate at a funding deficit. The If4 cent
sales tax will be used, in part, to fund operating costs on designated transit ways in the
Metropolitan Area. It is critical that this tax not be allocated in ways that allow the
Legislature or Met Council to abrogate their responsibilities for funding operating costs
for the metropolitan transit system.
V-D Street Improvement Districts
Metro Cities supports the authority of local units of government to establish street
improvement districts. Street improvement districts allow for 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 but must also be spent. Street improvement districts would also aid cities under
5,000, giving them an alternative to the property tax system and special assessments.
Metro Cities also supports the further investigation of implementation of the Center for
Transportation Studies' research on value capture. The research identifies additional tools
for the legislature to explore offering to cities as options to finance transportation
improvements.
V-E Highway Turnbacks & Funding
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 roads without the total
cost being reimbursed to the city in a timely manner.
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to
absorb the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing
municipal turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. The 2008
transportation finance bill will add approximately $6 million to the Metro Turnback
Fund, bringing the fund up to $20 million, which falls short of the $100 million needed.
Metro Cities supports additional funding for municipalities that are assuming the role of
maintenance and upkeep on city streets that maintain a level of traffic consistent with
state highways. Cities should be compensated for providing a service that traditionally
has been borne by the state. The state has abrogated its responsibility for maintaining
major roads throughout the state by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the
burden of maintenance on major state roads.
36 2010 legislative Policies
Transportation
V-F "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role
Metro Cities supports continuation of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), with a
majority of locally elected officials as members and participating in the process. The
TAB was developed to meet federal requirements, designating the Metropolitan Council
as the organization that is responsible for a continuous, comprehensive and cooperative
(3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area
projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (IS TEA), the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the
21 st Century (TEA2l) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
V-G Photo Enforcement of Traffic laws
Cities should be allowed to enforce traffic laws and promote public safety on
Minnesota's streets and highways through the use of photo enforcement technology.
V-H Airport Noise Mitigation
Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize
the impacts of Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) operated facilities on
neighboring communities. The MAC should determine the design and geographic reach
of these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities
and concerns of impacted cities and their residents. The MAC and the state should seek
long~term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all homes
in the 64-60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and
charges collected from airport users, as well as state and federal funds. . Furthermore,
unless mitigation funding is provided, Metro Cities opposes any legislation that requires a
property owner to disclose those properties that lie within 64-60 DNL noise contours.
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.
V-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 CSAH distributions to metropolitan counties are
2010 Legislative Policies 37
Transportation
inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Criteria,
such as the nu:rnber of average daily trips, should be established in a small city local road
improvement program for funding qualification and a distribution method devised.
Possible funding sources include the five-percent set-aside account in the Highway User
Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal acco1.lnts, street improvement
districts, and/or state general funds.
V-J County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
Even with the additional resources provided by the Legislat1.lre through the transportation
finance bill, significant needs remain in the metro area CSAR system. The additional
revenue for the CSAH system will result in more projects being completed faster,
however, greater pressure is being placed on municipalities to participate in cost sharing
activities, encu:rnbering 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.
Although only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly
50% of the vehicle miles traveled. The new CSAH formula passed by the Legislature
will better account for needs in the Metropolitan Area, and the new formula is a first step
in providing additional resources for the Metropolitan Area.
V-K MunicipallnputlConsent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Minnesota S~tatutes direct the Minnesota DepartIlleilt of Transportation (MuDDT) to
submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior
to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizenlbusiness/municipal input.
If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, it may appeal. Currently, that
process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeal~
board are binding on both the city and MnDQT.
Metro Cities opposes any changes to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to
disregard the appeal~ board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change
would significantly minimize MnDOT's desire or need to negotiate in good faith with a
city for appropriate project access and alignment, and it would make the public hearing
and appeal~ process meaningless.
Metro Cities opposes elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal
process for the same reasons we oppose changing the process as it applies to MuDOT
trunk highway projects.
38 2010 Legislative Policies
Transportation
VMl Plat Authority
Metro Cities supports current law granting counties review and comment authority for
access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. Metro Cities opposes any
statutory change that would grant the county veto power or that would shorten the 120-
day review and permit process time.
VMM City Speed Limit Control
Metro Cities supports a reduction in the state-wide default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph
on local residential roads. Metro Cities supports design standards that result in slower
speeds on local roads. In the event of a uniform speed limit reduction, Metro Cities
supports increased state funding for education and enforcement.
VMN Speed Limits Surrounding City Parks and Schools
At cities' or counties' discretion, Metro Cities supports a year round reduction of speed
limits within 500 feet of any city or county parks as well as schools.
V-O MnDOT Maintenance Budget
With the passage of the transportation finance bill, much ofMNDOT's maintenance
budget has been restored. However, it is likely that local units of government will
continue be asked to maintain state-owned infrastructure. Metro Cities' supports
MnDOT alleviating cities of the State's responsibilities with the additional resources
provided to MnDOT this year through the Transportation Finance bill. We also support
funding that allows the State to maintain its own infrastructure.
V-P Transit Taxing District
Metro Cities supports a stable revenue source to fund both the capital and operating costs
for transit at the Metropolitan Council. 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, 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. However, Metro Cities does not support the expansion of the transit
taxing district without a corresponding increase in the service. To do so would add
another burden to property tax payers without a corresponding benefit.
2010 Legislative Policies 39
.
-W Committee Rosters (VI)
Housing & Economic DeVeloprnent
Anne Norris (Chair), City Manager, Crystal
Bonnie Balach, Consultant, Minneapolis
Karl Ba.talden, Housing Spec./Assoc. Planning, Woodbury
Cecile Bedor, Planning & Econ Development, Minneapolis
Gino Businaro, Councilmember, Chaska
Ultan Duggan, Councilmembet, Mendota Heights
Rick Getschow, City Manager, Hopkins
Tina Goodroad, Bonestroo, St. Paul
Amber Greves, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Bryan Hartman, Program Manager, Bloomington
Brian Heck, Admr.-Clerk, Shorewood
Lee Helgen, CouIlcilmember, St. Paul
Jon Hohenstein, Comm. Dev.Dir., Eagan
Schawn Johnson, Asst. to the City Mgt., New Brighton
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
Brian Kleven, Councilmember/EDA Comm., Osseo
Steve Lampi, Mayor, Brooklyn Park
R. Michael Leek, Comm. Dev. Dir., Shakopee
Lorrie Louder, Dir. Of Bus & IGR, St. Paul Port Authority
Bruce Nordql1ist, Comm. Dev. Dir., Apple Valley
Tammy Omdal, Deputy City Manager/CFO, Burnsville
Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Dayton
Jennifer Pelletier, Planning Commission, Lake Elmo
Terence Quigley, Councilmember, Shoreview
Melissa Reed, Gov't Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Robert Schreier, Dir. of Commun. Dev., Brooklyn Park
Bob Streetar, Comm. Dev. Dir., Oakdale
Wendy Underwood, Gov't Rel Rep., St. Paul
Tony Wagner, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Craig Waldron, Administrator, Oakdale
Brad Wiersum, Councilmembet~ Minnetonka
Pierre Willette, Government Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Julie Wi schnack, Comm. Dev. Dir., Minnetonka
2010 Legislative Policies 41
Roster
Metropolitan Agencies
Chuck Haas (Chair), Councilmember, Hugo
Susan Arntz, Administrator, Waconia
David Beaudet, Mayor, Oak Park Heights
Bob Bruton, Councilmember, North St. Paul
Holly Dahl, Mayor, Lakeville
Ultan Duggan, Councilmember, Mendota Heights
Sarah Erickson, Gov't Relations Rep., St. Paul
Cheryl Fischer, Mayor, Minnetrista
Elizabeth Glidden, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley
Brian Heck, Admr.-Clerk, Shorewood
Schawn Johnson, Asst. tothe City Manager, New Brighton
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
Dan Kealey, Councilmember, Burnsville
Matt Kline, Water Operator, Lakeland
Thomas Link, Comm. Dev. Dir., Inver Grove Heights
Lorrie Louder, Dir. Of Business & IGR Affairs, St. Paul Port Authority
Tim McNeil, Councilmember, Dayton
Tammy Omdal, Deputy City Manager/CFO, Burnsville
JuddSchetnan, Dir. Of Gov't Affairs, Metropolitan Council
Terry Schneider, Mayor, Minnetonka
Anne Smith, Councilmember, Lake Elmo
Ady Wickstrom, Councilmember, Shoreview
Pierre Willette, Govt. Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Marcia Glick (Chair), City Manager, Robbinsdale
Clark Arneson, Asst. City Manager, Bloomington
Patrick Born, Chief Financial Officer, Minneapolis
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Scott Cordes, Financial Services, St. Paul
Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville
Holly Dahl, Mayor, Lakeville
Craig Dawson, (former) Interim Admr., Lake Elmo
Jim Dickinson, Administrator, Andover
Lori Economy-Scholler, Chief Financial Officer, Bloomington
Danna Elling Schultz, Councilmember, Hastings
Sarah Erickson, Gov't Relations Rep., St. Paul
Jerry Faust, Mayor, St. Anthony Village
42 2010 Legislative Policies
. .
Roster
Susan Iverson, Finance Dir.lTreas., Arden Hills
Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Imlependence
Merrill King, Finan.ce Director, MiIlhetonka
Torn Lawell, Administrator, Apple Valley
Julie Linnihan, Finance Dir., Dayton
Dean Lotter, City Manager, New Brighton
Kristi Luger, Administrator, Excelsior
Mary McComber, COUllcilmember, Oak Park Heights
Steve Mielke, Administrator, Lakeville
Tammy Omdal, Deputy City Manager/CFO, Burnsville
Samantha OrdtUlo, AdministratOr, Dayton
Calvin Portner, Admin. Services Director, Plymouth
Don Rambow, Finance Dir., White Beat Lake
Gene Ranieri, lGR Director, Minneapolis
Robin Roland, Fimmce Oir., Farmington
Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Cottage Grove
Dick Woodruff, Councilmember, Shorewood
Transportation & General Government
Doug Anderson (Chair), Mayor, Dayton
Dick Allendorf, CotUlcilmember, Minnetonka
Susan Arntz, Administrator, Waconia
Bob Bruton, Councilmember, North St. Paul
Scott Cordes, Financial Services, St. Paul
. Steve DeLapp, Councilmember, Lake Elmo
Ultan Duggan, Councilmernber, Mendota Heights
Steve Elkins, CotUlcilmemoer, Bloomington
Danna Elling Schu.ltz, CotUlcilmember, Hastings
Sarah Erickson, Gov't. ReI. Rep., St. Paul
Dan Gustafson, Councilmembet, Burnsville
Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
Bill Hatgis, Mayor, Woodbury
Tom Harmening, City Manager, St. Louis Park
Greg Hoag, Pu.blic Works Dit., Arden Hills
Steve Lampi, Mayor, Brooklyn Park
R. Michael Leek, Comm. Develop. Dir, Shakopee
Linda Loomis, Mayor, Golden Valley
Dean Lotter, City Manager, New Brighton
Scott Lund, Mayor, Fridley
Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights
Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shakopee
2010 Legislative Policies 43
. .
Roster
Ron Moorse, Administrator, Arden Hills
. Mike Mornson, City Manager, St. Anthony Village
Bud Osmundson, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer, Burnsville
Will Rossbach, Councilmember, Maplewood
Russ Stark, Councilmembet, St. Paul
Dick Swanson, Councilmember, Blaine
Jon Wertjes, Director of Transportation Services, Minneapolis
Ady Wickstrom,Councilmembet, Shoreview
Pierre Willette, Gov't Relations Rep., Minneapolis
44 2010 Legislative Policies