The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4. LMC Legislative Policies -#1-/ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: LMC Legislative Policies DATE: October 19,2006 This was deferred from the City Council meeting on October 1 ih. Please bring your copy from that meeting; if you do not have it and need another, please contact Toni (233- 9314). Alternately, it can be downloaded from the League's website to review the policies www.lmnc.org. I apologize for the short notice on the original re~uest, but we did not receive it until the Thursday before Tuesday's meeting (October 12t). My choice was either to put it on the agenda for the 1 ih, so that ifthere was a question raised, it could be deferred to the workshop meeting on the 24th, or scheduling it for the 24th. However, that would have left no City Council meeting to which to table any unresolved issues, prior to the requested comment date of October 31 st. Councilor Lehman raised a question on eminent domain. The applicable language on that is found in SD-14 "Private Property Rights and Takings", which is found on pages 14-18. Please contact me if there are questions. ~ Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: League ofMN Cities - Draft Legislative Policies DATE: October 11, 2006 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to endorse the draft 2007 Legislative Policies, as determined by the League of Minnesota Cities Policy Committees. BACKGROUND: Attached are policies which were distributed by the LMC. They are to be considered by the League Board on November 16th; as such, they are asking that any comments be received by Tuesday, October 31 st. Periodically the City of Shakopee has considered League Policies, and those of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. As a whole, these policies are usually beneficial to all cities. However, ifthere are individual policies with which the Shakopee Council has issues, those can be removed, and a written request to modify those could be made to the League Board. At the AMM police adoption meeting held last year, Shakopee was the only city that raised a question from the floor at the policy adoption meeting regarding an individual policy - that related to eminent domain. ALTERNATIVES: The Council can choose to: 1. Endorse the LMC Policies as drafted. 2. Endorse the LMC Policies, but remove individual ones for individual comment. 3. Do not comment. - RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the LMC Policies be endorsed. Ifthe Council has individual ones with which they want to comment, they should be removed from consent agenda and discussion made. RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING: Due to the diversity of policies, all of the City's goals could be seen as supported by the LMC policies. ACTION REQUIRED: Unless the Council has individual issues, it should, by motion, direct that staff notify the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors that it endorses the policies as written. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th Note: If staff would like to review these policies, please see Toni. CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 2007 Legislative Policies DATE: October 24, 2006 Attached is the draft copy ofthe recommendations ofthe four legislative policy committees for the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. This is being distributed in advance, so that Council will have ample opportunity to review these before the City Council meeting on November 8th. This would be in advance ofthe AMM Annual Meeting on November 16th. Knowing the Council's previous interest, eminent domain language has been changed since the 2006 policies, and is found on page 11 (Article III - J). !V~~~V;~~ Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th . . January 2007 1),,~f1 Legislative POLICIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 145 University Ave. W. . St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 . Fax: (651) 281-1299 Website: www.amm 145.org . + Table of Contents Municipal Revenue & Taxation (I) I-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship .................................................................. 1 I-B Levy Limits...................................................................,.......................... ......... 1 I-C Local GovernmentAid (LGA) .......................................................................... ..1 I-D Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) ......................................................... 2 I-E Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution .............. ....... ..............:...... ..... ..... ....... ..... ..... 2 I-F Limited Market Value (LMV) ................................. .......~.......................... ..... ..... 2 I-G Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits......................................................... 2 I-H State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property ................................... 3 1-1 Class Rate Tax System..................................................................................... 3 I-J Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility........................................................ 3 I-K Sales Tax on Local GovernmentPurchases ...................................................... 4 . I-L City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance .......................................................... 4 I-M Public Employees' RetirementAs~ociation (PERA) .......................................... 4 I-N Aggregate Mining Fee...................................................................................... 4 1-0 State Program Revenue Sources ................................ ................................ ...... 4 General Legislation (II) II-A Mandates & Local Authority .............................................................................. 5 II-B City Enterprise Activities..............................................................................,.... 5 II-C Firearms on City Property................................................................................. 5 II-D 911 Telephone Tax............................................................................................ 5 II-E 800 MHz Radio System.......................................................................... .......... 5 II-F Impaired Waters. ........................................................................... ..................... 6 II-G Building Codes................................................................................................. 6 II-H Administrative Fines......................................................................................... 6 .. Housing & Economic Development (III) III-A City Role in Housing ......................................................................................... 7 III-B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing ................................................. 8 III-C Inclusionary Housing......................................................................................... 8 11I-0 State Role in Affordable Housing ....................................................... ..... .... ...... 8 III-E Federal Role in Affordable Housing .................. ......................................... ....... 9 III-F City Role in Economic Development ................................................................. 9 III-G Development........ .............................. .....................,...................... ........... .....1 0 III-H Redevelopment........................................................................ ...................... 10 2007 Legislative Policies. I ~ , Contents 11I-1 Tax Increment Financing ............................................. ..................................... 10 III-J Eminent Domain...... ..................................... ................................................... 11 III-K This Old Houseffhis Old Shop ........................................................................ 12 III-L Business Subsidy Policy................................................................................. 12 III-M Internet Technology............. ............................................................................. 12 Metropolitan Agencies (IV) IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance.... ,............................................. ............ 13 IV-B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council................................... 13 IV-C Selectionof Metropolitan Council Members.................................................... 14 IV-D Funding Regional Services.. ............. ...... ................ ......... ........................... ...; 14 IV-E Regional Systems .............. .... ................................................ ...... ... ........... .... 14 IV-F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans ........................................................... 15 IV-G Local Zoning Authority..................................................,.......................... ........ 15 IV-H Regional Growth.... .................................................. ...............,. .,.................... 15 IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule................................................................ 16 IV-J Natural Resource Protection........ ............................................................... .... 16 IV-K Federal Clean Water Mandates ...................................................................... 17. IV-L Inflow and Infiltration (111).................. ................................................................. 17 IV-M Water Supply................. ".'.,.' ,.,...................................,...................................... 18 IV-N Service Availability Charge (SAC) .................................................................. 19 IV-O Funding Regional Parks & Open Space .......................................................... 19 IV-P Livable Communities.... ....................................................... ............. .............. 19 IV-Q Affordable Housing Need .. ....... ........ ........... ... ... ................. ... .... .... ...... ........... 20 Transportation (V) V-A Transportation and Transit Funding ... .............. ........................................ ........ 21 V-B Regional Transit System..............................................................,.................. 22 V-C Transit Operating Subsidies .................................................. ......... .... .... ........ 22 V-D Road Access Fee.................................................................................... ....... 22 V-E Street Utility.............. ..,................................................................................... 22 V-F Highway Turnbacks & Funding ..................................... ........... ............ .... ........ 23 V-G "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role ......................... 23 V-H Red Light Cameras........................................................................................ 23 V-I Airport Noise Mitigation.................................................................................. 23 V-J Cities Under 5,000 Population ....................................................... ........ ......... 24 V-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula ................................. 24 V-L Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads .................... 24 V-M Plat Authority .................................................................................................. 25 V-N City Speed Limit Control................................................................................. 25 V-O MnDOT's Maintenance Budget...... ............ ................ ..................................... 25 ii Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . . Committee Rosters v Municipal Revenue Policy Committee........................................................................ 27 Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee ................................:..........28 Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee............ ................ ..........................,........... 28 Transportation and General Government Policy Committee....................................... 29 AMM MISSION STATEMENT To serve as the primary representative of the collective interests of all metropolitan cities on metropolitan issues and statewide issues with metropolitan significance. AMM MEMBERS 1. Albertville * 26. Fridley 52. Plymouth 2. Anoka 27. Golden Valley 53. PriorLake 3. Apple Valley 28. Hastings 54. Ramsey 4. Arden Hills 29. Hopkins 55. Richfield 5. Bayport 30. Hugo 56. Robbinsdale 6. Blaine 31. lndependen(;e 57. Rosemount 7. Bloomington 32. InverGrove Heights 58. St. Anthony 8. Brooklyn Center 33. Lake Elmo 59. St. Francis 9. Brooklyn Park 34. Lakeville .60. St. Louis Park 10. Burnsville 35. Lauderdale 61. St. Michael* 11. Champlin 36. Long Lake 62. St. Paul 12. Chanhassen 37. Mahtomedi 63. Sf. Paul Park 13. Chaska 38... Maplewood 64. Savage 14. Circle Pines 39. Medicine Lake 65. Shakopee 15. Columbia Heights 40. Mendota Heights 66. Shorewood 16. Coon Rapids 41. Minneapolis 67. South St. Paul 17. Cottage Grove 42. Minnetonka 68. Spring Park 18. Crystal 43. Minnetrista 69. Sunfish Lake 19. Dayton 44. Mound 70. Three Rivers Park District* 19. Eagan 45. New Brighton 71. Waconia 20. Eden Prairie 46. Newport 72. Wayzata 21. Edina 47. North St. Paul 73. West St. Paul 22. Excelsior 48. Oak Park Heights 74. White Bear Lake 23. Falcon Heights 49. Oakdale 75. Woodbury 24. Farmington 50. Orono 76. Woodland 25. Forest Lake 51. Osseo * = Associate Member 2007 Legislative Policies iii . . Municipal Revenue & Taxation (I) I-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship The AM:M supports a strong state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the following principles: . Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that emphasizes maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication between the state and local units of government, and to the public, about state and local roles and responsibilities; . Certainty and predictability in revenue sources including the property tax and local government aids; . Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to be met, mandates to be funded, and that maintain our state's economic vitality and competitiveness; . Recognition that a 'one size fits all' system that limits cities to the property tax as the major non-state aid revenue source does not fit all and to permit access to other tax and revenue sources that are not currently accessible as well as oppose reductions or limitations on the use of various license, development, or other general fees to pay for related services; . An equitable revenue and finance system that values all citizens receiving adequate levels of city services at similar levels of taxation, provides financial assistance to compensate cities and their taxpayers for overburdens created by non-taxpaying users of services and reduces tax burden disparities among cities. I-B Levy Limits The AMM strongly opposes levy limits and urges the legislature to not re-enact them. The AMM also opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations on the local government budget and taxing process. Expenditures for capital improvements such as infrastructure reconstruction should not be subjectto levy limits. I-C Local Government Aid (LGA) Local GovernmentAid (LGA), the only remaining form of general purpose state aid to Minnesota cities, has been systematically reduced and modified by previous legislatures, at a significant cost to most metropolitan communities. As a result of these changes a majority of the metropolitan area's cities no longer receive any LGA. . AM:M supports the restoration of previous LGA cuts to fully fund the current LGA formula. . AM:M supports the continuation ofLGA to assist those cities whose public service needs and costs exceeds their ability to pay. 2007 Legislative Policies 1 . + Revenue & Taxation . Alv1M supports modifying LGA formula floors and caps for the purpose of reducing annual payment distribution volatility. . Alv1M supports a state-conducted analysis of the impact of including the unique needs of rapidly growing cities on the LGA formula. . Alv1M supports the inclusion of inflationary factors in the LGA formula. I-D Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) The Market Value Homestead Credit is intended to bea state aid to individual homestead property taxpayers. However, the MVHC reimbursement structure undermines accountability in a number of ways, most directly by enabling the state to reduce or even eliminate the reimbursement to local units of government while preserving the benefit of the credit to the homeowner. To promote transparency, the credit should be structured as a direct credit to the taxpayer rather than a reimbursement to local units of government. Further, any savings to the state resulting from reductions in the MVHC should be spread proportionally to all benefiting taxpayers. I-E Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution TheAlv1M opposes the use offiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan programs since it results in ametropolitan~wide property tax increase hidden from the public. The Alv1M supports the continuation of the fiscal dispariti~s program until such time as an appropriate replacement is developed. I-F Limited Market Value (LMV) The AMM strongly opposes extension of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation purposes to additional property classes since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of property and create disparities between properties of equal value. The Legislature should monitor the effects of the LMV phase-out to avoid excessive tax burden increases to currently benefiting properties. The AMM believes that enhanced targeting for special circumstances better serves the tax system. I-G Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits TheAMM strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state constitution. This would eliminate any flexibility on the part of the Legislature or local governments to respond to unanticipated critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating economic situations. When services such as education, public 2 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Revenue & Taxation safety and health care require increased funding beyond the overall limit, experiences in at least one other state indicate that other publicly funded services receive less than adequate resources. Constitu- tionallimits result ina reduced base during times ofecbnomic downturn and the inability to recover to previous service levels when economic prosperity retuins: I-H State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property The 2001 Property Tax Reform Actshifted general education funding to the state, and funded it, in part, with a state property tax on commercial/industrial and cabin property. Since cities' only source of general funds is the property tax, the AMM strongly opposes extension of a state-levied property tax to additional classes of property. I-I Class Rate. Tax System TheAMM opposes elimination of the class rate tax system, or applying future levy increases to market value, since this would further complicate the property tax system. I-J Personal Property Taxation: Electric utility ,. The Minnesota DepamnentofRevenue is reviewing it's regulations for calculating the taxable market value of electric and natural gas utility property. This.a:ffects property taxes paid by investor-owned utilities (IOU s) not only to the state, but also to local governments. Provisions in the current regulations, .. such as depreciation limits and prescribed weights for the cost and income approaches to value, help to preserve the taxable value of this property over the many decades it is in service. Investor-owned utilities 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. IOU s argue that their property is over-valued and that depreciation limits should be removed. However, substantial changes to the utility property valuation rules could drastically reduce the taxable market value that helps compensate host cities for hosting base load electric generation facilities. 'The AMM opposes changes to the utility property valuation rules that would result in a significant decline in the taxable market value of utility property. . I:ri the event new utility valuation rules produce a decline, the Legislature should step in to help keep host cities financially whole as a way of compensat- ing for the economic and environmental costs of hosting base load electric generation facilities, rather than through increases in property class rates or other mechanisms. 2007 Legislative Policies 3 Revenue & Taxation I-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases The Legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases without requiring a reduction in other aids. I-L City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance . The AMM opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary to maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase capital goods and infrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and maintain high level bond ratings. I-M Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) The AMM supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary contribution increases. TheAMM also supports state assistance to local governments to cover any additional contribution burdens placed on citieso:rer and above contribution increases required by employees: Cities should receive sufficient notice of these increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting pur- poses. Further, theAMM will monitor legislative proposals and when necessary and appropriate, respond in a manner that supports this policy and provides for the fair treatment of employees and the protection of municipalities' interests. I-N Aggregate Mining Fee In order to provide an incentive for the extraction of local aggregate resources prior to urbanized development, and in order to help offset the negative impacts of aggregate mining on local communities, the state should authorize cities and townships to collect a per ton host community fee from the opera- tors of aggregate mines with the fee proceeds to be deposited in the municipality's general fund. 1-0 State Program Revenue Sources The AMM supports continued development of the Metro area in a manner that is responsive to the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and the Metro area The AMM supports the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Legacy Act. However, theAMM opposes any attempt by the state to finance state agencies, personnel, programs or services through municipal utility collection or municipal property tax mechanisms. Municipal utility rates are created to operate and maintain municipal utilities. Local property taxes are created to finance local government programs and services. The programs and services financed through the Clean Water Legacy Act, or any future state program, should be fmanced through traditional state revenue raising sources such as income or sales taxes. I- ,J ~jl> . 4 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities General Legislation .~.~. II-A Mandates & Local Authority The AMM opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create mandated additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities' ability to fund traditional service needs. 11-8 City Enterprise Activities ;",t The AMM supports cities' authority to establish city enterprise operations in response to community needs, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure resident's quality oflife. Creation of an enterprise operation allows a city to provide the desired service while maintaining fmancial 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 notAMM's intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking lots, on city streets orcity sidewalks. II-D 911 Telephone Tax -lj~t:.:\ Public safety answering points (pSAP's) must be able to rely in the future on a continuing source of911 revenues at the state level to pay for upgrades and modifications to local 91 I 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 The AMM supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (previously the Metro- politan 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 2007 Legislative Policies 5 t,~,';.' General Legislation choose. The AMM 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 cost, since the prime purpose ofthis system is to allow public safety agencies and other units of government the ability to communicate effectively. II-F Impaired Waters TheAMM supports continued development of the Metropolitan area in a manner that is responsive to the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and Metro Area. Insufficient resources for impaired water assessments, total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis, and capital projects threaten the Metro Area's ability to respond to market demands for development and redevelopment. Consequently,AMM supports continued funding ofthe Clean Water Legacy Act, with an on-going review to assure that Clean Water Legacy Act funds are properly distributed between assessment, TMDL development and capital projects to ensure both protection for our water resources and support for future development and redevelopment of the Metro Area.AMM further supports the continued use of capital funds for both storm water and wastewater projects. II-G Building Codes Approximately 20,000 new housing units are constructed annually in the Metro Area. Structural and water intrusion problems have surfaced in many homes and commercial buildings that have been built within the past 20 years. . These problems have resulted in dissatisfied homeowners and conflicts between the state, builders and cities. At the same time, the building permit surcharge, a fee collected by cities and deposited with the state for the purpose of financing building related information, research and training, has been diverted to the state general fund for budget balancing purposes. The AMM supports the rededicatioJ1 of the building peTInit surcharge for local building and construction management purposes. AMM fu..."1her supports ajoint effort by the state, cities and builders to collec- tively identify the appropriate uses of the fund including education and analysis of new materials and construction techniques, building code updating, building inspector training, development of performance standards and identifIcation of construction "best practices." AMM does not support legislative solu- tions that fail to recognize the interrelationships between builders, state building codes and cities. II-H Administrative Fines Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with ever increasing cost to local units of government and the use of administrative fInes is a tool to moderate those costs. The AMM supports the use of administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, minor moving violations up to 10 mph over the limit and public safety and nuisance ordinances. The AMM 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. AMM also endorses a fair hearing process before a disinterested third party. 6 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Housing & Economic Development (III) Introduction While the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven activity, all levels of government - federal, state and local- have a role to play in facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing in Minnesota. ----~ ---"'--'~-'- AMM's housing policies recognize and support the intergovernmental nature of this issue - including participation from federal, state, regional and local governments. Policies A through C outline the role of cities; Cities are responsible for much of the ground-level housing policy in Minnesota - including land- use planning, building code enforcement, and often times the packaging of financial incentives. How- ever, the state and Metropolitan Council must also playa major role by empowering local units of government and providing a variety of funding programs and tools. . Policy D addresses the state's responsibility to provide financial resources and establishes a general direction for housing policy. Finally, Policy E speaks to the urgent need for the federal government to increase its fmancial support for the production and preservation of affordable housing. III-A City Role in Housing In the state ofMinn~sota, the provision of housing is prkdominantly a private sector, market-driven activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via responsibilities in the areas ofland- use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Many cities choose to play an additional role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing programs and supporting either local or countywide housing andredevelopment authorities. Cities are also responsible for ensuring the health and safety oflocal residents and the structural soundness and livability of the local housing stock via building permits and inspections. AMM strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority to carry out these functions in a locally determined manner. ::{C::','. 2007 Legislative Policies 7 Housing and Economic Development 11I-8 City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing AM:M supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes that it is key to the economic and social well being of individual communities and the region. Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable and lifecyc1e housing by: . Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs; . Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing neighborhoods; . Expediting review processes; and . Working to reduce locally imposed dev~lopment costs. III-C Inclusionary Housing AMM supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed-use neighborhoods through- out a city. However, AM:M does not support passage of amandatory inclusionaryhousing law that would require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be affordable to house- holds 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 AMM believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory reform, density bonuses, and fee waivers, AMM does not believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve the desired levels of affordability solely through these steps. The Metropolitan Council, in ~reating its . affordable housing targets, must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial assistance and/or advocating for additional resources through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 11I-0 State Role in Affordable Housing Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHF A), the state estab- lishes 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 lifecycleand affordable housing issues. Particularly, the state should: . Increase funding, including state general funds and, possibly, alternate sources of revenue for programs that support lifecycle and affordable housing, including the proposed Housing Solutions Act; + Support housing programs that assist housing development throughout the low-to-moderate income range, including the Economic Development and Housing Challenge Program. 8 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Housing and Economic Development . As a means of reconciling affordable housing with community development goals.AMM: supports housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in areas with high concentrations of affordable housing, where the private market might not otherwise invest; . Continue the policy of using MHF A's investment earnings for housing programs; . Amend the tax exempt bond allocation statute to maximize its availability for affordable rental housing; . Provide exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the develop- ment and production of affordable housing; and . Authorize cities to amend their comprehensive plans, in order to facilitate increased lifecyc1e and . affordable housing, with a simple maj ority vote ofthe city council, rather than a super majority. III-E Federal. Role in Affordable Housing AMM encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels of funding for afford- able housing. Federal investment in affordable housing will increase the supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as increase the inter-jurisdictional collaboration between the two levels of govem- . ment. Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to maintain and increase affordable housing throughout the state. AMM strongly encourages the following: . To preserve and increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is a .. catalyst for creating more affordable housing; . To create and implement a more streamlined procedural method for local units of government to participate and access federal funding and services dealing with grants, loans, and tax incentive programs for economic and community development efforts; . To preserve resources to sustain existing public housing throughout the Metro Area; and . To commit resources to Section 8 funding. It is a flexible, cost effective, and successful program that has helped nearly two million families find housing through promotion of self-sufficiency and stability. III-F City Role in Economic Development The State of Minnesota should continue to reco~ze cities as the primary unit of government respon- sible for the implementation of economic development and redevelopment policies and land use con- trols. However, the state should begin to shift its focus from addressing economic needs based on population or location to a broader statewide perspective, which is based on economic development strategies, economic development priorities and economic impact. The state should also recognize the additional cost cities bear when undertaking redevelopment vs. development projects. 2007 Legislative Policies 9 Housing and Economic Development i,. III-G Development It should be the goal of the state legislature to champion development throughout the state providing enough sustainable funding to assure that the state remains competitive in a global marketplace. AMJ\1 supports the following: . Increased funding for the Contamination Cleanup Grant Account; . Increased funding for the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Program; . Reinstated funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund; . Continued funding for the Urban Initiative Program; . Continued support for the Bioscience partnerships between cities, companies, and the University of Minnesota; and . Increased funding in the livable communities demortstration account in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular location. III-H Redevelopment Red~velopmentallows local communities to adjustto changing market conditions, better utilize existing public infrastructure, and maintain a viable local tax base. However, due to the higher up-front costs of redevelopment, as compared to greenfield development, desirable redevelopment projects often require public assistance. The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to provide cities with practical and flexible resources that will address the challenges and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities. AMM supports: . Increased and sustained funding of a redevelopment fund, administered by the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), dedicated to Metropolitan Area projects. This goal can be accomplished by either amending existing statute or creating anew program exclusive to the Metro Area. In the event that the Legislature chooses to amend existing statute, AMM sup- ports a provision that any unused geographically allocated funds can be transferred back into the account andredistributed based on need; and 'J.,;' . Increased, flexible and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup Account for cleanup of polluted land and the recycling of previously developed land. III-I Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing (TIP) has been and continues to be the primary tool available to local commu- nities for assisting economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over time, several statutory changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use, while recent property tax reform has resulted in a decreased state fmancial stake in city TIP decisions. At the same time that TIP has become more restrictive and difficult to use, federal and state development and redevelopment resources have been steadily shrinking. Finally, the 2006 eminent domain reforms will make redevelopment significantly 10 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Housing and Economic Development more expensive in some cases and impossible in others. The cumulative impact ofTIF restrictions, shrinking federal and state redevelopment resources, and eminent domain reform will restrict a city's ability to address problem properties and will accelerate the decline of the developed cities in the Metropolitan Area. Without proper tools and resources to address decline, cities will be unable to stop it. At a minimum, in response the state should authorize increased flexibility in local TIP decisions. AMM urges the legislature to: . Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain the use ofTIF; .. Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District criteria so that a Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated parcels in addition to " railroad property; . Expand the flexibility ofTIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects; . Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects; and . Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIP districts and, if warranted, provide cities with additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls. In addition, for sites that don't meet the restrictive blight and contamination definitions of the 2006 eminent domain reform law, the legislature should explore creating incentives to encourage owners of properties that meetthe blight definitions under chapter 469 to voluntarily sell their land for redevelop- ment purposes. Incentives could include income tax credits, capital gains deferrals or other incentives targeted at property owners. Finally, the AMM encourages the State Auditor to continue to work towards a more efficient and streamlined reporting process. III-J Eminent Domain f'.,., Eminent domain reform actions of the 2006 Legislature resulted in a significant philosophical and legal shift in Minnesota. Whereas prior to 2006, Minnesota law provided extensive deference to local gove111Ii1ents, 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 redevelop- ment 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 the city, its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent. Reinvestment and reinvention strate- gies 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 beforethe public will be able to react. The AMM strongly encourages the Governor and Minnesota Legislature to revisit the 2006 eminent domain continued.. . 2907 Legislative Policies 11 Housing and Economic Development reforms to allow local governments to address blight and contamination problems before thosecondi tions become financially impossible to address. Specifically, the legislature should: . Re~write the blight and contamination definitions and standard of review sections to reflect the deterioration conditions that currently exist inthe Metro Area. . AIlowfor the assembly of multiple parcels in order to properly and appropriately redevelop blighted or contaminated sites. . Providefor the ability to acquire land from "holdouts" who will now view a publicly funded project as an opportunity for unethical personal gain at taxpayer expense. . Review the new enhanced compensation provisions to detennine whether individuals are inappro- priately enriched by the process. " III-K This Old Housel This Old Shop AMM supports the reenactment of the "This Old House" law, which allowed owners of older home- stead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements to the home. AMM also supports passage of similar legislation for owners of older commercial/industrial property who make improvements that increase the property's market value by at least 12%. III-L Business Subsidy Policy j..,.,. Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not mak{': any substantive changes to the Business Subsidy Act during the next legislative session, but sh()uld look to technical changes that would stream~ line both state and local processes and procedures. ",.\ III-M Internet Technology Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs and availabil~ ity of traditional infrastruoture-roads, rail, utilities, etc.-the new economy is increasingly dependent on reliable, redundant, cost effective, high bandwidth telecommunications capabilities. While the United States was once a leader among "wired" economies, its position has slipped dramatically as other countries have facilitated investments in fiber-optic deployment (fiber to the premises), commitments to true high speed internet capacity(1 00 mb to 1 gb) and improved networks (Internet 2). Recognizing that there is a policy debate regarding the role of government versus private telecommunications compa- nies in implementing the next generation of internet capability, bringing about such capabilities is increas- ingly important to ensure that US companies in general and Minnesota companies in particular can compete effectively in the global economy. The AMM encourages the State to develop a comprehensive strategy to stimulate the implementation of true high speed, world class, high bandwidth internet capabilities that are reliable, redundant, cost effective and available to all properties. 12 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Metropolitan Agencies (IV) i'j::'; IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance The statutorily-defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of 193 cities and townships covering over 3 ,000 square miles in seven counties. The effective and efficient delivery of certain public services and the continued economic growth of this region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to provide coordination and facilitate cooperation. Therefore, AMM 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 effectivelyand efficiently provided by local governments or the state. With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists tpday, 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 compre- hensive development guide that includes long~range comprehensive policy plans for the transporta- tion/aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space systems. . Review local comprehensive plans for compatibility with the plans of neighboring communities, consistericy"with Metropolitan Council policies and confonnity 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 informaiion to local units of government. Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council's role, through 'the regional development guide and its accompa- nying policy plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. Local governments are ultimately responsible for zoning, land use planning and development decisions within their borders. Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to the Metropolitan Council should be limited to a specific statutory assignment, or grant. 2007 Legislative Policies 13 . Metropolitan Agencies IV-C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members i' Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open process that includes an opportu- nity for local governments and otherstakeholders 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 combina- tion of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The Metropolitan Council should set user fees via an openprocessthat includes'publicnotices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of useral1cl set ilta level that supports effec- tive and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long-term service and fee stability. . AMM supports the use of user fees and property taxes to fund regional proj ects 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. +AMM supports user fees for regional projects so long as the fees are not used to coerce a particu- lar 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 consider- ation in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. Additional regional systems should only be established if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the 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. 14 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . :;." Metropolitan Agencies 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 isfound that the local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the 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 pre- scribe additional content or format beyond that whichis required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUPA); and . When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed, incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans, the AMM 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. The AMM 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. 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. AMM strongly opposes the creation of any appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions. . . IV-H Region,al Growth The most recent regional population forecasts project an additional 930,000 people and 460,000 households for the seven-county metropolitan area by the year 2030. In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality oflife: . natural resource protection will have tobe balanced with growth and development/reinvestment; . significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and . new households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, fIrst and second;..ring suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment. continued.. . 2007 Legislative Policies 15 . 1':-'" Metropolitan Agencies In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies: . The State of Minnesota must contribute additional fmancial resources, particularly in the areas of transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council; . The Metropolitan Council must 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 ofits authority and continue to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives-based manner; . Metropolitan counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance offacilities and services such as county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth; and . Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region extends beyond the traditional seven-county area and the need to work collaboratively 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. IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule Cities are scheduled to review their comprehensive plans and submit any necessary updates to the Metropolitan Council in 2008. ,.,... Any future changes to the schedule for local comprehensive planning should be accompanied by the statutory establishment of a complementaryscheduleforregional planning. This schedule should: . Protect cities from being forced into a state of perpetual planning in response to regional actions; and . Ensure sufficient time for cities to understand and incorporate regional policies into their local planning efforts. IV-J Natural Resource Protection The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. However, anyaddi- tional steps taken by the Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that: 16 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . Metropolitan Agencies . 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. AM:M urges the state and! or the Metropolitan Council to provide fmancial assis- tance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources; . The completion oflocal Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI/ A) is not a regional system nor is it a required component oflocal comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act; and . 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 ofland not already contained within a public park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility oflocal units of government. IV-K Federal Clean Water Mandates l.j., Recentlegal action related to impaired waters poses a si~ficant threat to the development and redevel- opment interests of the Twin Cities. However, becaus~ the Environmental Protection Agency measures compliance on a statewide basis, and because watersneds and river basins transcend political bound- aries, meeting clean water standards is a statewide issue. Clean water requirements will affect both wastewater treatment and storm water systems. The Metropolitan Council should partner with federal and state agencies, as well as MetropolitanArea cities, to arrive at solutions to current legal challenges associated with the federal Clean Water Act that are both financially and environmentally appropriate for cities, the region and the state. IV-L Inflow and Infiltration (III) The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Plan establishes an III surcharge beginning in 2007 on cities that are determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of clear water to the MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently 56 cities have been identified as excessive III contribu- tors. AMM recognizes the importance of controlling III because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive III in one city can affect development capacity of another city that lies down pipe. AMM's policies supported the following criteria for a surcharge program: . A data supported definition of "excessive III" that includes data over a five year period with periodic updates that reflect municipal mitigation efforts; continued.. . 2007 Legislative Policies 17 . Metropolitan Agencies . Access to all flow data that verifies that the origin of the III is within a city's collection system and not a MCES interceptor, or not from anotherjurisdiction; . The amount of the surcharge is commensurate with the cost of solving the problem; . The surcharge is levied as a last resort and will not be charged unless a city fails to develop a mitigation plan in a timely manner; . The surcharge is discontinued when the city adopts a construction schedule to implement their III mitigation plan; and . All money collected from an individual city via the surcharge is returned to the city for their mitiga- tion efforts. The surcharge program will include a deferral of III surcharges over 25% of municipal wastewater charges and additional metering ofMCES interceptors. The AMM will continue to monitor the sur- charge program as it gets underway, and encourages the Metropolitan Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area III mitigation through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation. IV~M Water Supply Iv'" 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 and will undertake the following activi- ties: . Technical ground water supply and use data; . A master Metro Area water supply plan; . Recommendations for clarifying the roles oflocal, regional and state governments; . Recommendations for streamlining and consolidating decision making and approval processes; and . Recommendations for funding future planning and capital investments. In addition to the Metropolitan Council, there are currently at least five state agencies with water related jurisdiction. There are also several federal agencies involved in water issues. AMM supports the Metropolitan Council activities associated with clarifying local, regional and state water supply roles. AMI\1 also supports any analytical work that will help streamline and consolidate the myriad and often conflicting water supply permitting processes. AMMfurther supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. . However, AMI\1 opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the watersupply arena. The AM.M further opposes the elevation of water supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. At this time, AMJvI opposes any regional taxes or fees for water supply planning. 18 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities IV-N Service Availability Charge (SAC) ., The Met Council proposed changes to its SAC program in 2005. The original proposal would have disallowed the use of grandfathered (pre 1973) SAC credits. AMM opposed that change; and con- vened a work group to review the proposals and make recommendations. As a result of those discus- sions and subsequent meetings with MCES staff, the Metropolitan Council is considering a no-net- credit proposal. Under this proposal, when a redeveloping property's new use requires lower waste- water capacity than what was used in the prior seven years, SAC credits would be liniitedto 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. TheAMM supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, simplification and lower rates. Under a . no-net-credit structure, theAMM 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. The AMM also supports a start'date of20 1 0 to allow cities adequate time to detennine and use existing SACcredits. IV-O Funding Regional Parks & Open Sp~ce . In:the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state parks. There- fore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improve- ment of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks. IV.;P Livable Communities The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development, Brownfield clean up and mixed-use, transit-friendly development and redevelopment. AMM strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities. Use of interest earningsfromLCA 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 LeA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to established funding criteria AMM supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the livable communities demon- stration account in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment goals. 2007 Legislative Policies 19 ~;. .-. . IV-Q Affordable Housing Need The A1vf1.1 recognizes and supports the role of the Metropolitan Council, under the Land Use Planning Act, to prepare and adopt guidelines to assist local government units with the provisions of the Land Use Planning Act, including the responsibility for planning for affordable housing. In forecasting (iff<?rdable housing need in the metro area, and determining each community's share of the regional need, the Council must recognize both the limited opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial assistance and advocating for additional resources. The AMM opposes sanctions or penalties if a city fail~to meet its share of affordable housing need due to a lack of available resources. 20 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities .. Transportation (V) V-A Transportation and Transit Funding AMM strongly supports increased funding for transit and highways, both of which are a critical need in the metropolitan area. In addition, funding for mass transit, including transit ways, light rail or heavy rail in existing corridors, should be dedicated in a manner consistent with current highway funding. Funds allocated to the metropolitan area should be flexible so that the most efficient and cost effective trans- portation solution may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem (congestion relief) can be ad- dressed. AMM supports full funding of the transportation and transit needs based on projected growth over the next twenty-five years. The Metro Area is predicted to grow by one million people by 2030 with a funding need for transportation and transit of over one billion dollars per year for the next fifteen years. AMM feels it is important to join a coalition of organizations to better address the transportation financ- ing needs of the entire state and will be cooperating with groups with the same mission. For the purpose of accelerating road and transit construction projects in the metro area,AMM supports the following list of revenue raising options in any combination, provided there is no corresponding offset to negate any actual new revenue, which has the political andfinancial viability to produce improved roads and transit. (;'- . Gas Tax . Additional Highway Bonding . License Tab Fee Restoration . Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Increase . Wheelage Tax . Street Utility Fee . Road Access Fee . Sales Tax AMM supports the constitutional dedication of the MVST. AMM will oppose any reduction in existing dollars to fund transportation as a result of the dedication ofMVST dollars for transportation purposes. All non-transportation programs should be funded from sources other than currently dedicated trans- portation funds. 2007 Legislative Policies 21 . Transportation V-B Regional Transit System The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that serves both com- muters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix ofHOV lanes, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corri- dors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the region's changing travel patterns. In order to slow the growth in congestion and provide regional residents and visitors with a realistic alternative to the automobile, the regional transit system needs a funding source that is both stable and capable of growing with the region. The AMM is opposed to legislative directives that constrain the ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse commute routes, suburb-to-suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box. V-C Transit Operating Subsidies The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is now expanding to include rail transit and dedicated bus ways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities and counties should not be singled out to fund the operation of specific transit lmes or routes of service within this regional system. V-D Road Access Fee In order to fairly provide for major street improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the legislature should authorize cities to establish, at their option, a road development access charge to be collected at the time that subdivisions are approved and/or at the time bllilding permits are issued similar to park dedication fees. V-E Street Utility TheAMM supports legislation to authorize cities to establish a street utility for street construction and reconstruction of aging infrastructure, similar to the existing storm water utility, so that costs of improved facilities can be more fairly charged to the users rather than the general population as a whole. 22 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . Transportation V-F Highway Turnbacks & Funding The AMM supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnbackof 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. 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 tumback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. TheAMM supports, through the state bonding pro- cess, additional funds for local roads and bridges. Additional funding would begin to ease the burden municipalities are bearing due to the increase cost of road maintenance. The AMM supports additional funding for municipalities who are assuming the role of maintenance and upkeep on city streets, which maintain a level of traffic consistent with state highways. Cities should be compensated for providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. The state has abro- . gated its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of maintenance on major state roads. V-G "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role TheAMM supports continuation of the TransportationAdvisory Board (TAB), with a majority oflocally elected officials as members and participating in the process. TAB was developed to meet federal requirements designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for the continu- ous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century (TEA21) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). V-H Red Light Cameras Cities should be allowed to enforce traffic laws and promote public safety on Minnesota's streets and highways through the USe of photo enforcementtechnology, including motion imaging recording system technology. V-I Airport Noise Mitigation AMM supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize the impacts of the MetropolitanAirports Commission (MAC) operated facilities on neighboring communities. The MAC should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities and concerns of the impacted citiesand theirresidents. The MAC continued.. 2007 Legislative Policies 23 . Transportation and state should seek long-term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all hom~s 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, AMM opposes any legislation that requires a property owner to disclose those properties that lie within 64-60 DNLnoise contours. The AMM supports a change to the governance structure of the MetropolitanAirports Commission (MAC), which currently consists of 15 members, all appointed by the Governor except for two, whom are appointed by the Mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Although, under statute, the MAC is charged to "reflect fairly the various regions and interests affected by the airport system," only two of the communities most affected by the IVrlimeapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) have direct representation on the commission and are given the opportunity to select their district's representative. Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airport impacted communities are more significantly impacted by noise, traffic, and other numerous expansion-related issues, the AMM supports the broad goal of providing MSP-impacted communities greater representation on the MAC. V-J Cities Under 5,000 Population .'." Cities under 5,000 population do not directly receive any non-property tax funds for their 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 included the five-percent set-aside account in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts and/or state general funds. V-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula TheAMM supports modification of the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distribution formula to more fairly account for total vehicle miles traveled on metropolitan county CSAH funded roads. Al- though only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle miles traveled. The metro counties receive less than 20% of the CSAH distribution and have instituted city cost participation, whereby cities are now forced to pay up to 45% ofthe CSAH road project cost In some areas. V-L Municipal input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads Minnesota statute directs MnDOT to submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizen/business/municipal input. IfMnDOT does not concur with requested changes, MnDOT may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeal board are binding on both the city and MnDOT. 24 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities ,,.,., . The AMM opposes any changes to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to totally disregard the appeal board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change would significantly minimize MnDOT's desire or need to negotiate in good faith with the city for appropriate proj ect access and alignment, and it would make the public hearing and appeal process meaningless. The AMM opposes elimination of the county roadmunicipal consent and appeal process for the same reasons we oppose changing the process as it applies to MnDOT trunk highway proj ects. V-M Plat Authority AMM sl1-pports the current law granting counties review and comment authority for access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. AMM opposes any statutory change that would grant the county veto power or shorten the 120-day review and permit process time. V-N City Speed Limit Control AMM supports a reduction in the state-wide default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph on local residential roads. AMM supports design standards that result in slower speeds on local roads. In the event of a uniform speed limit reduction, AMM supports increased state funding for education and enforcement. V-O MnDOT's Maintenance. Budget The Minnesota Department of Transportation's maintenance budget has been reduced in recent years due to the State's lack of funding and as a result, state right of ways, roadways, and state owned parcels are not being adequately maintained. As a result, municipalities are spending local dollars maintaining these properties which are deteriorating at an accelerated rate. AMM supports fully funding MnDOT's maintenance budgetto relieve the financial burden on local units of government and to assure that state highways do not deteriorate prematurely. 2007 Legislative Policies 25 . 26 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . Com.,mitteeRosters (VI) Municipal Revenue Policy Committee Marcia Glick, City Manager,. Robbinsdale (Committee Chair) ClarkArneson,Asst. City Manager, Bloomington Patrick Born, Finance Director, Minneapolis Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley Teresa Daly, Councilmember, Burnsville Lori Economy-Scholler, Chief Financial Officer, Bloomington Jerry Faust, Mayor, St. Anthony Walt Fehst, City Manager, Columbia Heights Jim Keinath, City Administrat07~ Circle Pines Tom Lawell, City Administrat07~ Apple Valley Linda Masica, Councilmember, Edina Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights Bruce Nawrocki, Councilmember, Columbia Heights Scott Neilson, Administrat07~ Mahtomedi Tammy Omdal, Chief Financial Officer, Burnsville Calvin Portner, Asst. to City Manager, Brooklyn Park Martin Rafferty, Administrator, Lake Elmo Don Rambow, Finance Director, White Bear Lake Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Cottage Grove Steven Sinell, City Assessor, Eden Prairie Matt Smith, Dir. Office of Financial Services, St. Paul Steve Stahmer, Administrator, Long Lake Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville continued... 2007 Legislative Policies 27 . Committee. Rosters Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee Janis Callison, Councilmember, Minnetonka (Committee Chair) Bonnie Balach, Contract Consultant, Minneapolis Karen Barton, Comm. Dev. Dir., Arden Hills Tom Daniel, Mgr. Econ. Dev., Minneapolis Tami Diehm, Councilmember, Columbia Heights Rick Getschow, City Manager, Hopkins Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley Bryan Hartman, Program Manager, Bloomington Brian Heck, City Manager, Lauderdale Jon Hohenstein, Community Development DirectOl~ Eagan Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal TammyOmdal, Chief Financial Offcr./Dep. CityMgr, Burnsville Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Dayton Ron Rankin, CommunityDevelopment Director, Minnetonka Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake Bob Schreier, Community Development Director, Brooklyn Park Bob Streetar, Community DevelopmentDirector, Columbia Heights Erin Stwora, Zoning Administrator/City Planner, Dayton Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul Craig Waldron, AdministratOl~ Oakdale Liz Workman, Councilmember, Burnsville Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee Craig Dawson, Administrator, Shorewood (Committee Chair) Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville Charles Dillerud,Planner, Lake Elmo Cheryl Fischer, Mayor, Minnetrista Elizabeth Glidden, Councilmember, Mirmeapolis Jack Haugen, Mayor Prior Lake Brian Heck, City Manager, Lauderdale Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo Larry Lee, Community Development Director, Bloomington Tom Link, Community Development Director, Inver Grove Heights Terry Schneider, Councilmember,Minnetonka Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul Pierre Willette, Gov iRelations Rep., Minneapolis Ron Wood, City Manager, Blaine Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville 28 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . . Committee Rosters Transportaton and General Government Policy Committee Dave Osberg, Administrator, Hastings (Committee Chair) Doug Anderson, Mayor, Dayton Beverly Aplikowski, MayO!; Arden Hills Mary Burg, Councilmember, New Brighton Sandi Dingle, Councilmember, St. Paul Pal'k Pam Dmytrenko,Asst. to City Manager, Richfield Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Bloomington Matt Fulton, City Manager, Coon Rapids Randy Gilbert, MayO!; Long Lake Dan Gustafson? Councilmember, Burnsville Chuck Haas, Councilmember, Hugo Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley TomHansen, Deputy City Manager, Burnsville Jon Haukaas, Director of Public Works, Fridley Marv Johnson, Mayor, Independence Dave Kelso, Councilmember, Circle Pines Steve Lillehaug,Asst. City Eng./Traffic Eng., Minnetonka Dean Lotter, Administrator, Minnetrista Karen Lowery Wagner, Gov 't Relations, Minneapolis John Maczko, Transportation Dir.--Pulic Works Dept., St. Paul Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shako pee Mike Mornson, City Manager, St. Anthony Village Veid Muiznieks, Police Chief, Newport Dave Pokorney, Administrator, Chaska David Pritzlaff, Councilmembel; Farmington Martin Rafferty, Administrator, Lake Elmo Joe Ryan, Building Official, Plymouth Steve Stahmer, Administrator, Long Lake Ellsworth Stein, Airport Relations Commission, Mendota Heights Dick Swanson, Councilmember, Blaine Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul John Wertjes, Director of Transportation Services, Minneapolis Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville 2007 Legislative Policies 29