HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.F.1. 2011 Metro Cities Legislative PoliciesTO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is asked to endorse the draft 2011 Legislative Policies, as recommended by
the Metro Cities Legislative Policy Committees.
BACKGROUND:
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Metro Cities — Draft Legislative Policies
November 9, 2010
Attached are the draft legislative policies from Metro Cities. Metro Cities is an
association of Twin Cities -area municipalities that advocates for city interests at the
Legislature and before the Met Council. The policies are being recommended after
study by four policy adoption committees, which were comprised of elected and
appointed officials from the member cities. Upon adoption, the policies will provide
guidance for Metro Cities staff when it deals with the Legislature during the 2011
session.
Member cities are asked to consider the Metro Cities' policies prior to its Annual
Meeting, which will be held this year on November 17th.
In general, these policies are beneficial to metropolitan area cities. However, because of
the wide diversity of the member cities, some of the policies may be better suited for
some cities more than others. If there are specific policies with for which a specific city
may have issues, a request for a general discussion may be made at the Policy Adoption
meeting. However, there must be a total of five cities in attendance that support a
particular policy modification in order for debate about the policy to be heard from the
floor.
It should be noted that Metro Cities must balance the desire to accept comments and
requests for modifications from the various member cities, with the investment of time
which had been made by members of the various policy committees, many of whom
attended three separate meetings to study at the policies and their overall impacts. That is
the reason for requiring five cities to be in agreement to have discussion from the floor.
If there is a clear direction from at least 3 members of the City Council to debate and
request a policy modification, the City's representative at the meeting will seek to address
that from the floor. However, if there is a dissenting opinion from two or fewer members
of the Council, but the City Council still wants that opinion to be heard, the best way to
13. F.1,
accommodate that would be for the minority opinion to be sent in written form to Metro
Cities. A letter to that effect can be distributed prior to the Policy Adoption meeting.
Note that these are the policies of the Metro Cities group. Recently, City Councilors
were given an opportunity to individually comment on the separate draft 2011 Legislative
Policies of the League of Minnesota Cities. Because the LMC has its annual meeting in
June of each year, and no longer has a Policy Adoption meeting in the fall (prior to the
legislative session) it changed its by -laws a few years ago to accommodate for individual
comments to be made, and for the LMC Board to make the final adoption.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council can choose to:
1. Endorse the Metro Cities Policies as drafted.
2. Endorse, but identify any policies with which a majority of the Council has a
concern, and direct that a discussion of those policies be requested at the
Policy Adoption meeting.
3. Do not endorse the policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should give direction as to its preferences on the policy endorsement.
RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING:
The policies in general support many of the City's goals and objectives (A -E)
ACTION REQUIRED:
The Council should, by motion, given direction as to whether it wishes to endorse the
2011 Metro Cities draft Legislative Policies as written.
MM:cn
)
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
Metro Cities --
METRO CITIES
Home
Board of Directors
Member Cities
Legislature
Met Council
Newsletter
Billtracker
DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies
2010 Legislative Policies
Policy Committees and
Members
Metro Area Managers
Association
Staff
Questions, Comments or
Suggestions
Site Map
In DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies:
2011 DRAFT Municipal
Revenue Policies
2011 DRAFT General
Government Policies
2011 DRAFT Housing and
Economic Development
Policies
2011 DRAFT Metropolitan
Agency Policies
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
be
I -B Levy Limits
Search
Page 1 of 6
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
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 governments. Metro Cities believes that the state
and local relationship is in decline, as expressed through continued reductions in
state aids and credits, and increasingly unpredictable levels of those 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 for services that have historically been the responsibility
of the state.
Metro Cities supports a state and local fiscal relationship that affirms the goal of all
citizens receiving adequate levels of basic public services at relatively similar levels
of taxation, that compensates cities for service costs created by non - taxpaying users
of city services, that reduces tax burden disparities among communities, and that
assists cities with high needs and relatively low fiscal capacities.
Metro Cities supports a strong state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the
following principles:
• Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that
emphasizes maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication
between the state and local units of government, and to the public, about state and
local roles and responsibilities;
• Certainty and predictability in revenue sources including the property tax and
local government aids;
• Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to
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;
Go
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC = {4F 1 C9F3E- 6445- 4D73- ASOF... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 2 of 6
2011 DRAFT Transportation
Policies
Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits. Levy limits undermine local budgeting
processes, planned growth, and the relationship between locally elected officials and
their residents by allowing the state to decide the appropriate level of local taxation
and services, despite varying local conditions and circumstances.
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 limitations to the local government budget and taxing process.
I -D Local Government Aid (LGA)
The LGA program, originally enacted in 1971, was created with the goals of
providing property tax relief, and ensuring a sufficient level of revenues for local
government needs. Metro Cities supports Local Government Aid (LGA), the only
form of general purpose state aid to Minnesota cities, as a means of ensuring that all
cities are able to provide basic public services without over - burdening the property
tax.
In response to the state's budget deficits, LGA has been continually reduced. These
reductions have fallen disproportionately on metropolitan area communities. Overall,
reductions to local government aids and credits have been greater on a percentage
basis than reductions made to other areas of the state budget. The level of
reductions and unallotments and the unreliability of funding from year to year
undermine the goals of the LGA program. Metro Cities strongly opposes the
continued reductions of Local Government Aid for the purpose of balancing state
budget deficits.
Metro Cities supports the restoration of LGA, adequate funding of the LGA program
and the continuation of LGA to those cities whose public service needs and costs
exceed their ability to pay.
I -E Local Government Aid Reform
Metro Cities supports reforming the LGA program and distribution formula to address
geographic disparities, the issue of volatility, and the needs of metro area cities not
addressed through the current formula and distribution.
As a result of modifications and reductions to LGA, aids to metro area cities have
been reduced on a per capita basis by almost 50 %. Metro Cities supported the
formula modifications and LGA increase 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 supported the establishment of the LGA study group, passed by the
2008 Legislature, to conduct an analysis of the LGA program that includes an
examination of existing geographic disparities in the distribution of Local
Government Aid, an analysis of current need and capacity factors and consideration
of alternative factors, an analysis of the formula used to calculate aid for small cities,
volatility in the local government aid distribution and the impact of including the
unique needs of rapidly growing cities on the LGA formula. Metro Cities supported
the extension of the study group to December, 2012.
Metro Cities further supports having the study group consider the LGA program in
the context of the overall state and local fiscal relationship.
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
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {4F1C9F3E- 6445- 4D73- A80F... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 3 of 6
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.
In response to the state's budget deficit, MVHC payments to local governments
have been continually reduced and unallotted, resulting in an unreliability in the
reimbursement, and a shift of the state's property tax relief program onto cities.
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 -1 Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Metro Cities supported the passage of 2010 legislation to conduct an analysis of the
Fiscal Disparities Program. The study will be conducted by the Commissioner of
Revenue and is due February 1, 2012. The study shall analyze the benefits of
economic growth across the region, the program's impact on tax rates across the
region, the impact of homestead property tax burdens across jurisdictions, and the
relationship between the impacts of the program and overburden on jurisdictions
with properties that provide regional benefits. Metro Cities supports the continuation
of the fiscal disparities program unless an appropriate replacement is developed.
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.
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 new state property tax on commercial /industrial and
cabin property. The statute governing the state levy was subsequently amended so
that the levy is no longer dedicated to education. and the levy is automatically
adjusted by the rate of inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator.
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 of the class rate tax system, or applying future levy
increases to market value, since this would further complicate the property tax
system.
1 -M Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC = {4F 1 C9F3E- 6445- 4D73- A80F... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 4 of 6
The Minnesota Department of Revenue has revised its regulations for calculating
the taxable market value of electric and natural gas utility property. This affects
property taxes paid by investor -owned utilities (IOUs) not only to the state, but also
to local governments. Provisions in the previous regulations, such as depreciation
limits and prescribed weights for the cost and income approaches to value, helped to
preserve the taxable value of this property over the many decades it is in service.
IOUs enjoy a guaranteed rate of return on their capital investments, but host cities
experience the costs of environmental damage, nuisance and lost economic
development as the result of this property. IOUs argued that their property is over-
valued and that depreciation limits should be removed. However, changes to the
utility property valuation rules will drastically reduce the taxable market value that
helps compensate host cities for hosting base load electric generation facilities.
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 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 -O 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, the standard for the PERA General Plan, and a 60%
employer /40% employee split, the standard for the PERA Police and Fire Plan.
Metro Cities also supports state assistance to local governments to cover any
additional contribution burdens placed on cities over and above contribution
increases required by employees. Cities should receive sufficient notice of these
increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting purposes.
In 2010, pension stabilization legislation was enacted to begin addressing the
funding deficiency in the PERA pension plans. The modifications will increase
employer contributions by $16 million annually, but the overall legislative package,
including a reduction in the annual retiree adjustment, an increase in vesting to five
years, and a reduction in interest rates on refunds will reduce the unfunded liability in
the plans by $300 million annually.
To help ensure the fiscal health of the PERA system, Metro cities supports the
legislative changes made in 2010, and opposes benefit improvements for active
employees or retirees until the financial health of the PERA General Plan and PERA
Police and Fire Plan are restored.
Metro Cities supports modifications to help align PERA contributions and costs, and
reduce the need for additional contribution increase, including a modification of
PERA eligibility guidelines to account for temporary, seasonal and part time
employment situations, the use of pro -rated service credit, and a comprehensive
review of exclusions to simplify eligibility guidelines.
Metro Cities will monitor legislative proposals, plan design changes and the joint
study of the state's public pension plans 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.
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {4F1C9F3E- 6445- 4D73- A80F... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 5 of 6
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 communities, the state should authorize cities and
townships to collect a per ton host community fee from the operators of aggregate
mines with the fee proceeds to be deposited in the municipality's general fund.
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 townships. Metro Cities supports
legislative efforts to assist aggregate host cities in offsetting the negative impacts of
aggregate mining on local communities. Metro Cities would prefer that cities and
townships be allowed 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 Legislature may wish to consider an examination of the negative impacts
of aggregate mining on cities adjacent to host cities.
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 supported 2008 statutory changes that allow local governments to
establish trusts from which to fund post - employment health and life insurance
benefits for public employees, with participation by cities on a strictly voluntary basis,
in recognition that cities have differing local needs and circumstances. Cities should
also retain the ability to determine the level of post employment benefits to be
provided to employees.
I -T Health Care Insurance Programs
Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs, but
opposes actions that undermine local flexibility to manage rising insurance costs.
Metro Cities encourages a full examination of the rising costs of health care and the
impacts on city employers and employees. Metro Cities also supports a study of the
fiscal impacts to both cities and retirees of pooling retirees separately from active
employees.
I -U State Budget Stability
For 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, school payment delays, and drawing down the state
budget reserve. Many of these options will not be available to address future state
budget shortfalls and the Legislature and Governor must seek solutions that achieve
structural budget balance.
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 making 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
identified several major demographic and fiscal trends and recommendations to
address achieving balance in state revenues and expenditures and managing state
budget volatility.
Metro Cities strongly supports changes to the state's revenue system that enhance
and improve stability, flexibility and adequacy in the system. Such changes should
focus on changes that reduce the volatility of state revenues and improve the long
term balance of state revenues and expenditures. Metro Cities supports a statutory
http : /hnetrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC = {4F 1 C9F3E- 6445- 4D73- A80F... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 6 of 6 ,
budget reserve ceiling that is adequate to manage risks and fluctuations in the
state's tax system and a cash flow reserve account of sufficient size so that the state
can avoid short term borrowing to manage cash flow fluctuations.
Metro Cities also supports an examination of the property tax system and the
relationships between state and local tax bases, with an emphasis on recent state
budget cuts and their impact on property taxes.
I -V Online Travel Companies and Taxes
Metro Cities opposes legislation that allows online travel companies a tax exemption
that terminates obligations to pay hotel taxes to state and local governments, or
otherwise restricts legal actions by states and localities.
Home! Board of Directors 1 Member Cities 1 Legislature 1 Met Council 1 Newsletter 1 Billtracker 1 DRAFT 2011 Legislative Policies 1 2010 Leqislative
Policies 1 Policy Committees and Members 1 Metro Area Managers Association 1 Staff 1 Questions, Comments or Suggestions 1 Site Map
?6t \' °_tom by � �
Printer - friendly Version
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {4F1C9F3E- 6445- 4D73- A80F... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities --
Staff
Site Map
(i
CIT
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Home
Board of Directors
Member Cities
Legislature
Met Council
Newsletter
Billtracker
DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies
2010 Legislative Policies
Policy Committees and
Members
Metro Area Managers
Association
Questions, Comments or
Suggestions
In 2010 Legislative Policies:
Municipal Revenue and
Taxation
General Legislation
Housing and Economic
Development
Metropolitan Agencies
Transportation
General Government
II -A Mandates & Local Authority
II -B City Enterprise Activities
II -C Firearms on City Property
II -D 911 Telephone Tax
II -E 800 MHz Radio System
II -F Building Codes
II -G Administrative Fines
II -H Residential Care Facilities
II -I Annexation
II -J Rental Housing Ordinance Enforcement
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
Search
Metro Cities supports cities having the authority to establish
city enterprise operations in response to community needs,
Page 1 of 5
GO
http: / /rnetrocitiesmn.org /index. asp? Type =B_ BASIC &SEC= {A70E88F8- D09E -4AE3- 836... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 2 of 5
local preferences, state mandates or to ensure residents'
quality of life. Creation of an enterprise operation allows a city
to provide the desired service while maintaining financial and
management control. The state should refrain from infringing
on this ability to provide and control services for the benefit of
community residents.
II -C Firearms on City Property
Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns in city -owned
buildings, facilities and parks. This would allow locally elected
officials to determine whether to allow permit - holders to bring
guns into municipal buildings, liquor stores, city council
chambers and city sponsored youth activities. It is not Metro
Cities' intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal
weapons in parking lots, on city streets or city sidewalks.
II -D 911 Telephone Tax
Public safety answering points (PSAPs) must be able to
continue to rely on state 911 revenues to pay for upgrades
and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and
operational support, and dispatcher training. State funding
should also support the technology and training needed to
provide the number and location of wireless and voice over
internet protocol (VoIP) calls to 911 on computer screens and
transmit that data to police, fire and first responders.
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.
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 commercial buildings built
in the last 20 years. These problems have resulted in
http : / /metrocitiesnm.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {A70E88F8- D09E -4AE3- 836... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 3 of 5
dissatisfied homeowners and conflicts between the state,
builders and cities.
Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the
newly created Construction Code Fund, with proportional
distribution based on the area of enforcement where the fees
were received. Metro Cities further supports a joint effort by
the state, cities and builders to collectively identify appropriate
uses for the fund, including education, analysis of new
materials and construction techniques, building code updating,
building inspector training, development of performance
standards and identification of construction "best practices."
Metro Cities does not support legislative solutions that fail to
recognize the interrelationships between builders, state
building codes and cities.
II - G Administrative Fines
Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution
have met with increasing costs to local units of government.
The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those
costs. Metro Cities 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 building codes, zoning codes,
health codes, and public safety and nuisance ordinances.
Metro Cities supports the use of city administrative fines, at a
minimum, for regulatory matters that are not duplicative of
misdemeanor or higher level state traffic and criminal
offenses. Metro Cities also endorses a fair hearing process
before a disinterested third party.
II - H Residential Care Facilities
Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that
residents living in residential care facilities have appropriate
care and supervision, and that neighborhoods are not
disproportionately impacted by high concentrations of
residential care facilities. Under current law, operators of
certain residential care facilities are not required to notify cities
when they intend to purchase single - family housing for this
purpose. Cities do not have the authority to regulate the
locations of group homes and residential care facilities. Cities
have reasonable concerns about high concentrations of these
facilities in residential neighborhoods, and additional traffic
and service deliveries surrounding these facilities when they
are grouped closely together. Municipalities recognize and
support the services residential care facilities provide.
However, cities also have an interest in preserving balance
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp? Type =B BASIC &SEC= {A70E88F8- D09E -4AE3- 836... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 4 of 5
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 Iicensure so as
to be informed of local ordinance requirements as a part of the
application process. Licensing agencies should be required to
notify the city of properties receiving Iicensure 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 -1 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 governing
municipal boundary adjustments. The task force was charged
with developing recommendations 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, if any, changes
should be made to the law governing municipal boundary
adjustments was published in February of 2009. While the
task force was able to define the differences between cities
and townships on the issue of annexation, no significant
advancements were made in creating best practices. Metro
Cities supports continued legislative investigations into
developing recommendations regarding best practices
annexation training for city and township officials to better
communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. Further,
Metro Cities supports substantive changes to the state's
annexation 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
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {A70E88F8- D09E -4AE3- 836... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 5 of 5
regulate these areas "differently from the state building code."
Minnesota Statutes section 16B.6s subdivision 1 states:
"The state building code applies statewide and
supersedes the building code of any municipality. A
municipality must not by ordinance or through
development agreement require building code
provisions regulating components or systems of any
residential structure that are different from any provision
of the state building code."
Metro Cities supports the creation of a task force by the
Department of Labor and Industry to investigate a solution to
ordinance and state building code conflicts.
Home 1 Board of Directors 1 Member Cities 1 Legislature 1 Met Council 1 Newsletter 1 Billtracker 1 DRAFT 2011 Legislative Policies 1 2010 Legislative
Pollcies 1 Policy Committees and Members 1 Metro Area Managers Association 1 Staff 1 Questions. Comments or Suggestions! Site Map
Pacer ed i:y 7k'
go o�. Y vrnn
Printer - friendly Version
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp? Type =B_ BASIC &SEC= {A70E88F8- D09E -4AE3- 836... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities --
C ETRO CITIES
Home
Board of Directors
Member Cities
Legislature
Met Council
Newsletter
Billtracker
DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies
2010 Legislative Policies
Policy Committees and
Members
Metro Area Managers
Association
Staff
Questions, Comments or
Suggestions
Site Map
In 2010 Legislative Policies:
Municipal Revenue and
Taxation
General Legislation
Housing and Economic
Development
Metropolitan Agencies
Transportation
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Introduction
Search
Housing & Economic Development
III -A City Role in Housing
III -B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
III -C Inclusionary Housing
III -D Metropolitan Council Housing Targets
III -E State Role in Affordable Housing
III -F Federal Role in Affordable Housing
III -G Vacant and Boarded Properties
III -H Economic Development and Redevelopment
111 -1 Tax Increment Financing
III -J Eminent Domain
III -K This Old Housing /This Old Shop
III -L Business Subsidy Policy
III -M Internet Technology
III -N City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable
Development
111 -0 Impaired Waters
Page 1 of 14
GO!
http : / /metrocitiesirm.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {0825E929 -E1 C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 2 of 14
While the provision of housing is predominantly a private
sector, market - driven activity, all levels of government —
federal, state and local — have a role to play in facilitating the
production and preservation of affordable housing in
Minnesota.
Metro Cities' housing policies recognize and support the
intergovernmental nature of this issue — including participation
from federal, state, regional and local governments. 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 play a major role by empowering local units of government
and providing a variety of funding programs and tools.
III - A City Role in Housing
I n 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.
III - B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
M etro Cities' supports both affordable housing and housing
that is appropriate for people at all stages of life. A variety of
housing opportunities are important to the economic and social
well being of individual communities and the region. Cities 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;
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929- E1C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 3 of 14
• Expediting review processes;
• 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.
III D Metropolitan Council Housing Targets
In advance of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan deadline and in
response to projected growth in the Metro Area, the
Metropolitan Council created a methodology to determine how
many affordable housing units would be needed and where
those units should go. From that process, each metro area city
was assigned an affordable housing "target ". Further, Met
Council Comprehensive Plan guidance instructs cities to guide
sufficient land to accommodate the "targets ".
Metro Cities supports the creation of 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
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {0825E929 -E1 C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 4 of 14
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.
• Cities need significant financial assistance from the federal and
state government, as well as the Metropolitan Council, in order
to make progress toward creating additional affordable housing;
• 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 determine 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;
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929- E1C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 5 of 14
• Support housing programs that assist housing development
throughout the low -to- moderate income range;
• As a means of reconciling affordable housing with
community development goals, Metro Cities supports
housing programs designed to develop market rate housing
in areas with high concentrations of affordable housing,
where the private market might not otherwise invest;
• Continue the policy of using MHFA's investment earnings
for housing programs;
• 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 in Affordable Housing
Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain
and increase current levels of funding for affordable housing.
Federal investment in affordable housing will increase the
supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as increase
the inter - jurisdictional collaboration between the two levels of
government. Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding
states and local governments in their efforts to maintain and
increase affordable housing throughout the state. Metro Cities
strongly encourages the following:
• To preserve and increase funding for the Community
Development Block Grant Program 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,
http: / /metrocitiesirm.org/ index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {0825E929 -E1 C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 6 of 14 '
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
• 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 sub 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 recovery efforts following
the first wave leaving communities financially unprepared to
deal with the second wave.
While mortgage foreclosures are 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;
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929 -E1 C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 7 of 14
• 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
• Registration of vacant and boarded properties, if this is
deemed to be an effective approach to dealing with the
problem.
III -H Economic Development 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 of
government 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) Redevelopment/Development – real estate
development. They are not mutually exclusive —some projects
require a boost on both counts.
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {0825E929 -E1 C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 8 of 14
III -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 (positive 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
(DEED) with the goal of implementing a regional
economic and workforce development competitiveness
strategy for short and long -term economic growth.
III - H (2) Redevelopment
Redevelopment involves the development of land that requires
"predevelopment." The goal of redevelopment is to facilitate the
development of "pre- used" land, thereby leveling the playing
field between green field and brown field sites so that a private
sector entity can rationally choose to locate on land that has
already been used. The benefits of redevelopment include a
decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), more efficient use
of new or existing public infrastructure (including public transit),
ameliorated city costs due to public safety and code
enforcement, and other public goods that result when land is
reused rather than abandoned and compact development is
encouraged.
Metro Cities supports:
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929- E1C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 9 of 14
• 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.
111 - 1 Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been and continues to be
the primary tool available for local communities to assist
economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over
time, several statutory changes have made this critical tool
increasingly difficult to use, while recent property tax reform
has resulted in a decreased state financial stake in city TIF
decisions. At the same time that TIF has become more
restrictive and difficult to use, federal and state development
and redevelopment resources have been steadily shrinking.
The 2006 eminent domain changes will make redevelopment
significantly more expensive in some cases, and impossible in
others. The cumulative impact of TIF restrictions, shrinking
federal and state redevelopment resources, and changes to
eminent domain laws will restrict a city's ability to address
problem properties and will accelerate the decline of developed
cities in the Metropolitan Area. With huge state and federal
budget deficits, the only source of revenue available to
accomplish the scope of redevelopment necessary is the value
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {0825E929 -E1 C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 10 of 14
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 or indirectly reduce the effectiveness
of TIF;
• 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.
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929- E1C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 11 of 14
• Support TIF for neighborhood recovery efforts in the wake
of the foreclosure crisis;
• Consider creating an inter - disciplinary TIF team to review
local exception TIF proposals, using established criteria,
and make recommendations to the legislature on their
passage; 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 governments, statutory changes
enacted in 2006 provide significantly greater deference to
property owners. Eminent domain actions for traditional public
uses such as streets, parks or sewers will cost more. And
except for the most extreme cases of blight or contamination,
eminent domain for redevelopment purposes will be nearly
impossible at any cost.
The proper operation and long term economic vitality of our
cities is dependent on the ability of a city, its citizens and its
businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent. Reinvestment
and reinvention strategies can occasionally conflict with the
priorities of individual residents or business owners. Eminent
domain is a critical tool in the reinvestment and reinvention
process and without it; our cities will be allowed to deteriorate
to unprecedented levels before the public will be able to react.
Metro Cities strongly encourages the Governor and Legislature
to revisit the 2006 eminent domain changes to allow local
governments to 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;
http: / /metrocitiesmitorg /index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC& SEC ={ 0825 E929 -E 1 C8- 48B9 -83 PA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 12 of 14
• 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
• Allow for modifications to the effective date language in
the 2006 legislation in order to accommodate delays in
project schedules that are beyond the control of the
acquiring authority.
III - K This Old House/ This Old Shop
Metro Cities supports the reenactment of the "This Old House"
law, which allowed owners of older homestead property to
defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or
improvements to the home. 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 of traditional
infrastructure — roads, rail, utilities, etc. —the new economy is
increasingly dependent on reliable, redundant, cost effective,
high bandwidth telecommunications capabilities. While the
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929- E1C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 13 of 14
United States was once a leader among "wired" economies, its
position has slipped dramatically as other countries have
facilitated investments in fiber -optic deployment (fiber to the
premises), commitments to true high speed internet capacity
(100 mb to 1 gb) and improved networks (Internet 2).
Recognizing that there is a policy debate regarding the role of
government versus private telecommunications companies in
implementing the next generation of Internet capability,
bringing about such capabilities is increasingly important to
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.
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.
http : / /metrocitiesnui.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= { 0825E929 -E 1 C8 -48B 9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 14 of 14
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.
Home 1 Board of Directors 1 Member Cities 1 Legislature 1 Met Council 1 Newsletter 1 Billtracker 1 DRAFT 2011 Legislative Policies 1 2010 Legislative
Policies 1 Policy Committees and Members 1 Metro Area Managers Association 1 Staff 1 Questions, Comments or Suggestions 1 Site Map
?5wered by 7t.
g o��� r
Printer - friendly Version
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC& SEC= {0825E929- E1C8- 48B9- 83FA... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities --
C ETRO CITIES
Home
Board of Directors
Member Cities
Legislature
Met Council
Newsletter
Billtracker
DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies
2010 Legislative Policies
Policy Committees and
Members
Metro Area Managers
Association
Staff
Questions, Comments or
Suggestions
Site Map
In 2010 Legislative Policies:
Municipal Revenue and
Taxation
General Legislation
Housing and Economic
Development
Metropolitan Agencies
Transportation
Association of Municipalities
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Search
Metropolitan Agencies
IV -A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
IV -B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
IV -C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
IV -D Funding Regional Services
IV -E Regional Systems
IV -F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
W -G Local Zoning Authority
IV -H Regional Growth
IV -I Comprehensive Planning Schedule
IV -J Natural Resource Protection
IV -K Inflow and Infiltration (I/I)
IV -L Water Supply
IV -M Service Availability Charge (SAC)
IV -N Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
IV -O Livable Communities
IV -P Density
IV -A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
Page 1 of 11
GOI
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC ={ 06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 2 of 11
The statutorily - defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made
up of 193 cities and townships covering over 3,000 square
miles in seven counties. The effective and efficient delivery of
certain public services and the continued economic growth of
this region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to
provide coordination and facilitate cooperation.
Therefore, Metro Cities supports the continued existence of a
metropolitan governance system for the purpose of:
♦ Facilitating long -term region -wide planning with the cooperation
and consideration of the affected local units of government; and
♦ Planning for and providing those public services that are needed
by the region, but cannot be effectively and efficiently provided by
local governments or the state.
With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists today, the
region needs some entity to perform these functions.
However, the Twin Cities' metropolitan Governance structure
should not be granted, nor should it assume, general local
government or state agency powers.
IV -B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
♦ Plan for the orderly and economical development of the
metropolitan area by preparing a comprehensive development
guide that includes long -range comprehensive policy plans for the
transportation /aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational
open space systems.
♦ Review local comprehensive plans for compatibility with the plans
of neighboring communities, consistency with Metropolitan Council
policies and conformity with metropolitan system plans.
♦ Provide specific regional services and administer select regional
grant programs as assigned by state or federal law.
♦ Provide technical assistance, research and information to local
units of government.
Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council's role, through the
regional development guide and its accompanying policy
plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities with
technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals.
Local governments are ultimately responsible for zoning, land
use planning and development decisions within their borders.
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,
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 3 of 11
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.
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
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp? Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {O6FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 4 of 11
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
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.
♦ Concerning `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
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 5 of 11
potential conflicts between respective goals for flexible
development.
IV - G Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions,
which are the implementation of cities' comprehensive plans, should
not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan 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 maximum flexibility around local planning
decisions, are imperative. The regional framework should
assist cities in managing growth while being responsive to the
individual qualities, characteristics and needs of metropolitan
cities, and should encourage sub - regional cooperation and
coordination.
In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that
preserves the region's high quality of life:
♦ Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth
and development/reinvestment;
Significant new resources will have to be provided for
transportation and transit;
♦ New households will have to be incorporated into the core
cities, first and second -ring suburbs, and developing cities
through both development and redevelopment.
In order for regional and local planning to result in the
successful implementation of regional policies:
• The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial
resources, particularly in the areas of transportation and
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B &SEC= { 06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 6 of 11
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.
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
http : / /metrocitiesnm.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 7 of 11
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.
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 completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and
Assessments (NRI /A) is not a regional system nor is it a
required component of local comprehensive plans under
the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act.
Metro Cities supports a 1 0 -year time frame for comprehensive
plan submissions.
• 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 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 (1 /1)
The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management
Plan established an I/1 surcharge in 2007 on cities that are
determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of storm
water to the MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type= B_BASIC& SEC ={ 06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 8 of 11
46 cities have been identified as excessive I/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 I/1
because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of
wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/1 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 I /1. 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
determined using a data - supported definition of excessive I /I,
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 I/1 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 recommendations for
funding future planning and capital investments.
The advisory committee completed Phase I of its work in
December 2006, and submitted a report to the Legislature in
January, 2007, 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
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 9 of 11
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 water management and water supply. Metro Cities
also supports on -going analytical work that will help streamline and
consolidate the myriad and often conflicting water supply permitting
processes. Any state and regional regulations and processes should
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 government. Metro 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 Service 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
years for phased developments and longer time lines to be
decided on a case by case basis for redevelopment projects
that involve extenuating circumstances. Metro Cities also
supports a start date of 2010 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
http: / /metrocitiesnm.org /index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC ={ 06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 10 of 11
its operations out of state, that such transfers are strictly
voluntary, that transfers be part of a 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, we recommended that the Council approve
these changes provisionally, with a three year phase in and
the establishment of a task force to comprehensively examine
the SAC financing structure and provide recommendations on
SAC financing for the long term. 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 program. The Metropolitan Council approved the
formula 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 -O Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the
Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary, incentive -based
approach to affordable housing development, brown field clean up
and mixed -use, transit- friendly development and redevelopment.
Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach,
which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local
communities. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA program has
generated billions of dollars of private and public investment,
created thousands of jobs and added thousands of affordable housing
units in the region.
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility
requirements in the livable communities demonstration account in
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 11 of 1
order to assist communities with development that may not be
exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular
location and in order to support important development and
redevelopment goals. Metro Cities opposes changes to this
program that constrain flexibility around program requirements
and criteria.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the Livable
Communities Demonstration Account Program to reflect the
linkages among the LCDA and municipal objectives and goals and
Met Council systems objectives and goals. Metro Cities also
supports statutory changes to assure that all metropolitan area cities
are eligible to participate in the LCDA program.
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.
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.
Home I Board of Directors Member Cities 1 Legislature 1 Met Council 1 Newsletter 1 Billtracker 1 DRAFT 2011 Legislative Policies' 2010 Legislative
Policies 1 Policy Committees and Members 1 Metro Area Managers Association 1 Staff 1 Questions Comments or Suggestions 1 Site Map
0 i
Printer - friendly Version
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp? Type =B_ BASIC &SEC= {06FCEC87- 7875- 4A22- 88B... 11 /2/2010
Metro Cities --
METRO CITIES
Home
Board of Directors
Member Cities
Legislature
Met Council
Newsletter
Billtracker
DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies
2010 Legislative Policies
Policy Committees and
Members
Metro Area Managers
Association
Staff
Questions, Comments or
Suggestions
Site Map
In DRAFT 2011 Legislative
Policies:
2011 DRAFT Municipal
Revenue Policies
2011 DRAFT General
Government Policies
2011 DRAFT Housing and
Economic Development
Policies
2011 DRAFT Metropolitan
Agency Policies
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
TRANSPORTATION
Search
Page 1 of 5
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 1/4 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
GOI
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {ABOBF747 -38B 1- 4894- B3A... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 2 of 5
2011 DRAFT Transportation
Policies
singled out to fund the 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 '/4 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.
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 (ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation
Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) 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
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {ABOBF747 -3 8B 1- 4894- B3A... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 3 of 5
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 inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area.
Criteria, such as the number of average daily trips, should be established in a small
city local road improvement program for funding qualification and a distribution
method devised. Possible funding sources include the five- percent set -aside
account in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal
accounts, 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 Legislature through the
transportation finance bill, significant needs remain in the metro area CSAH 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, encumbering an already over - burdened local
funding system. When the alternative is not building or maintaining roads, cities
bear not only the costs of their local systems but also pay upward of fifty percent of
county road projects. Metro Cities supports special or additional funding for cities
that have burdens of additional cost participation in county road projects.
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 Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Minnesota Sstatutes direct the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to
submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years
prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for
citizen /business /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 appeals board are binding on both the city and
MnDOT.
Metro Cities opposes any changes to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to
disregard the appeals 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 appeals process meaningless.
Metro Cities opposes elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal
process for the same reasons we oppose changing the process as it applies to
MnDOT trunk highway projects.
V -L Plat Authority
http: / /metrocitiesmn.org/ index. asp ?Type= B_BASIC &SEC= {AB0BP747 -38B 1- 4894- B3A... 11/2/2010
Metro Cities -- Page 4 of 5
Metro Cities supports current law granting counties review and comment authority
for access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. Metro Cities
opposes any statutory change that would grant the county veto power or that would
shorten the 120 -day review and permit process time.
V -M City Speed Limit Control
Metro Cities supports a reduction in the state -wide default speed limit from 30 to 25
mph on local residential roads. Metro Cities supports design standards that result in
slower speeds on local roads. In the event of a uniform speed limit reduction, Metro
Cities supports increased state funding for education and enforcement.
V -N 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 of MNDOT'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.
V -Q Complete Streets
Metro Cities supports options in state design guidelines for streets that would give
cities greater flexibility to:
•
•
•
safely accommodate all modes of travel
address storm water needs
ensure livability in the appropriate context for each city.
Metro Cities opposes state imposed mandates that would increase street
infrastructure improvement costs in locations and instances where providing access
for alternative modes including cycling and walking are deemed unnecessary or
inappropriate as determined by local jurisdictions.
Home 1 Board of Directors 1 Member Cities 1 Legislature 1 Met Council 1 Newsletter 1 Billtracker 1 DRAFT 2011 Legislative Policies 1 2010 Legislative
Policies 1 Policy Committees and Members 1 Metro Area Managers Association 1 Staff 1 Questions, Comments or Suggestions 1 Site Map
Powered by
http : / /metrocitiesmn.org /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {ABOBF747 -38B1- 4894- B3A... 11/2/2010