The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017.01.17 CC Packet - Goal Setting SessionHugo City Council Agenda Goal Setting Workshop Tuesday, January 17, 2017 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Overview • Highlights of 2016 • 2017 Objectives 4. Updates from Commissions • Planning Commission • Parks Commission • EDA • Historical Commission • Fire Department 5. Discussion Items • Long Term Goals 6. Selection of 2017 City Goals 7. Direction to Staff 8. Adjournment TO: City Council FROM: Bryan Bear, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2017 Goals. DATE: January 12, 2017 for the City Council workshop of January 17, 2017 BACKGROUND: Attached to this memo is a copy of the 2016 Goals approved by the City Council last year, as well as the 2017 goals that were discussed in recent weeks by the Parks Commission, Planning Commission, Economic Development Authority and Historical Commission. I'd encourage you to review this information as you prepare the City's goals for 2017. As you know, staff uses the goals developed by the Commissions and City Council to direct our work priorities in addition to our daily work assignments. Also attached are the legislative priorities from Washington County and Metro Cities. Please review them. In addition to the commission goals, I have discussed priorities with department heads and other staff members. This year, we divided our discussions between items that we intend to spend significant time on during 2017, and other projects that may be looming for the future. Below is a selected list of some of the 2017 projects. At the end of this memo is a list of future projects or initiatives that might stir discussion. Infrastructure: Pavement management program. In 2016, the city re-evaluated the streets CIP program. Council decided to accelerate the program by dedicating additional funds. The city uses a rating system for our city streets, which has been used to set priorities for the City's street reconstruction program. Based on this rating system, the Council authorized a feasibility study for reconstruction of a number of streets in the North Sunset Lake area in 2017. Later this year, staff will provide the council with updates on the condition of city streets and long term maintenance costs and will ask council to consider approving another street reconstruction project for 2018. Construction projects in 2017 will focus primarily on new public roads and utilities to be constructed concurrent with private development. Aside from that, we are not anticipating major projects to impact Hugo this year. As a reminder, the city approved a new gravel specification in 2016, which should have a positive impact on our gravel roads. If conditions allow (dry fall, or cold winter) staff would like to complete a large segment of JD2 Maintenance in 2017. Fiber. Staff has been working with internet providers and state and county government toward expansion of high speed internet services in Hugo. A significant fiber project was completed in Eastern Hugo by Century Link in 2016. We expect the new service to be available by the end of March 2017. Street Lights. Public Works, Planning and Finance staff have been discussing our options for future street lighting within the city. It is a significant annual budget item that includes electricity, maintenance and replacement costs. Key decisions concerning street lights are being made at the time that new neighborhoods are created that have long term implications. Staff has been working with Xcel Energy and Connexus Energy on replacement of streetlight heads to LED fixtures, which should reduce maintenance and lower costs. Some of the fixtures will be replaced this summer. Water: Water Summit. Staff will soon propose a date for the next water summit. The agenda will include legislation concerning appropriation permits, the latest information from the USGS, and the significance of a protective elevation being set for White Bear Lake. Stormwater re -use. We continue to find opportunities for construction of water re -use projects within new developments. Additionally, we are seeking funds for construction in parks and roadway medians. Retrofit of HOAs will occur with a project in Waters Edge to begin construction this year. Ongoing discussion will involve the regulatory environment for the systems and operation and maintenance costs. Water Conservation. The 2016 water rebate program has been completed and was successful. We will be proposing a new program for the Council to review. We have also completed water audits on city properties, and are looking at other water conservation incentives, and possible changes to ordinances and water rate structures. White Bear Lake Lawsuit and Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement impacts Hugo, and the council has taken a position on it. The implementation of the agreement continues despite a coming lawsuit that will begin in March. We expect mediation to occur before the lawsuit, and any results will likely further impact the city. Regional water studies are being finalized that include the City of Hugo. Staff is participating on the DNR's advisory team for the new Groundwater Management Area. Staff is also collaborating with Met Council staff on their feasibility study for surface water alternatives in the NE Metro. We are discussing alternative ideas for using surface water, and encouraging additional studies be conducted. We are also monitoring progress on the USGS study which is being released in phases. The Met Council is also studying aquifer sustainability and stormwater re -use. Hugo's water supply plan has been updated and submitted to DNR. Presentations. Staff is routinely asked to give presentations on water related topics to all sorts of organizations and agencies all around the state. While this is an effective method of delivering our message and influencing the discussion, it is extremely time consuming. Fire Department: Ambulance Service. An annual report will be provided to the council in the spring. Staffing. Fire Department leadership will continue expansion of recruitment and retention efforts with the goal of increasing staffing levels. CIP. The Fire Chief's primary recommendation involves a long term strategy that would allow for a 1991 pumper/tanker truck to be replaced with a ladder truck when it reaches the end of its 30 -year life cycle. Automated External Defibrillators. The Fire Department has purchased the AED's and has implemented this program for 2017. The Fire Chief will report on this program during the Fire Department annual report. Emergency management. Washington County is creating training opportunities for communities that might involve natural disasters, shooters, civil unrest, cyber attacks, and other unfortunate happenings. Police: Staffing. A new deputy was been added into the scheduling rotation in 2016. In early 2017, an investigator will begin full-time work in Hugo. Security. Last year, Sergeant Johnson suggested the City review security measures at City Hall. Following Council's workshop on active shooter training, the staff has prepared recommendations on security plans, policies, and other physical security improvements to city buildings that will be discussed this year. Parks: Recreation programs. The city is continuing to strengthen partnerships on programming for our residents. The staff has been working to add new programming for 2017 in collaboration with the new Forest Lake YMCA. A task force created by the White Bear School District to assess the needs of seniors will finish their work this spring. Staff would like to help the Tour de Hugo committee to form their own non-profit entity to manage the event. Trails. The city has recently completed important trail connections in the city with new developments and road reconstruction projects. In 2016, a trail along Oneka Lake Blvd and 147th Street, was completed. The Parks Commission is working to identify missing links that are not likely to be completed with development or road projects, and creating strategies for completing the links. Irish Avenue Park. A timeline and vision for Irish Ave Park will be created. Lions Park. A plan has been approved for redevelopment of the park, however the construction costs cannot currently be funded with existing revenue streams. Parks Plan. The Parks Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan and is one of the chapters that will likely see major revisions when the comp plan is updated. The Parks Commission has begun this process and public meeting will being this spring. Administration and Planning: Downtown Hugo. Following the completion of the downtown market study, we know that commercial development in downtown is viable. The Council and Planning Commission have also determined that the downtown design guidelines are still a proper guide for new development in the downtown area. The EDA has approved a marketing plan that is being implemented by staff. Staff will continue to facilitate discussions between landowners to promote the private redevelopment of the old stock lumber site. Collaboration with others. We will continue to seek ways to provide improved municipal services at a lower cost where possible by combining efforts with other entities. Washington County has completed a study of Economic Development services and has hired a full time staff person who has been collaborating with us. The County is also deciding how to implement a recently completed plan concerning delivery of library services, including Hugo. The Building Department continues to provide full time building permit and inspection services for the City of Scandia, and part time for other cities. Development. Staff is closely monitoring the pace of development activity which has been increasing recently. Some ongoing development projects include Adelaine Landing, Lavalle Fields, Fox Meadows, Prairie Village, Victor Gardens North Village, Clearwater Cove, Dignicare, Frenchman Place, Sprouts Pediatric Dental, Western Spring, and others. There is significant interest in vacant, undeveloped land parcels as well. Technology. The staff continues implementation of a document imaging system. This will convert the city's paper files to electronic files. The system will allow for easier searching of documents and is beginning to change the way the city does business. New equipment has been installed in the conference room, and other upgrades are needed at the front counter, and other public spaces. Staff will be evaluating new software for plan review capability, and we will be allowing more city business to be conducted on-line. Comprehensive Plan. This will be a major effort for the Council, Commissions and City staff throughout 2017, with the kickoff meeting to be held in February. Historical Commission. This year, the Commission is planning to evaluate and make recommendations concerning the future of the Hopkins Schoolhouse. The Historical Commission will continue cataloging the City's history. They would like to hire an intern to assist with this task and the organizing and maintenance of their existing collections. The Historical Commission would also like to attract additional members. A Beautification Subcommittee has been established and has been making recommendations on entry signs, landscaping, monuments, and other items to improve the city's appearance. Legislative Activity. During the 2017 legislative session, we anticipate spending considerable time in two areas. The first is to reduce state regulation of stormwater re -use projects. The second involves our efforts to preserve rail access to the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends council use the information provided to discuss and prepare a list of goals for 2017. HUgO 2016 City Council Focus Goals •Reduce, Reuse, Replenish •Develop stormwater reuse/management projects and seek funding through legislature •Promote water conservation practices through education and incentives •Collaborate with neighboring cities on water supply :Beonsider changes to ordinances and water rate structure • a leader in regional activities related to water issues •Focus on marketing the City -owned property •Work with Bald Eagle Industrial Park businesses on rail service *Develop program with EDA to improve communication with existing businesses •Work with Washington County on economic development activities •Implement marketing plan for the City •Market Dowtown Hugo •Update ordinances relating to Subdivisions, PUD's, Parking, Landscaping, Zoning •Approve Stormwater Plan •Begin Comprehensive Plan update process •Consider expansion of City's role as Local Governing Unit for stormwater management •Evaluate criteria for gateway elements, entrance signs for the City •Improve TH61/170th Street roundabout •Begin Oneka Lake Road/147th Street reconstruction project *Perform maintenance on JD2 from 170th Street to the north •Continue work on stormwater management projects •Study future expansion of Public Works facility •Begin extension of Oneka Parkway, south of Frenchman Road (CSAR 8) •Regraveling of 180th Street *Work with Xcel Energy to create plan for replacement of street lights *Develop phasing plan and funding plan for Lions Park •Strengthen programing partnerships •Address senior recreational programming •Review Street Assessment Policy concerning trails and sidewalks *Begin process of updating Parks Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan *Develop timeline and vision for Irish Avenue Park *Evaluate changes made in ambulance service *Review Capital Improvement Program to include ladder truck •Strategize a plan for the Fire Department to position AED's throughout the City *Increase staff levels through expansion of recruitment and retention efforts *Continue leadership training *Collaborate with surrounding cities to improve operations and consider automatic mutal aid *Evaluate security at City buildings *Continue working with Washington County to expand library services *Continue document imaging of City files *Work with Historical Commission on hiring of intern and expanding membership •Keep apprised of changes in broadband services for fiber expansion in Hugo *Increase technology to better serve our residents •Evaluate Solar Ordinance Subscriptions HCity 0r ug() 2016 Ongoing Priorities • Continue to provide training and education and opportunities • Continue firefighter recruitment and retention • Continue internship program • Recruit qualified citizens for commissions • Provide adequate resources and technology -Monitor development activity and adjust staffing levels • Hold semiannual workshops with each Commission/Board • Continue training new Commissioners and Council Members • Continue to promote leadership within the Commissions/Boards • Develop long-term strategies for industrial development • Proceed with street reconstruction program • Share services with neighboring communities -Manage growth responsibly • Provide transparency by keeping up-to-date postings in newsletters, website, and cable bulletin board -Maintain relationships with HBA, Senior's Club, Lions Club, American Legion, Food Shelf, YRN, recreational and other civic organizations. • Continue annual citywide bus tour • Expand social networking where possible • Keep apprised of legislative issues that impact budgeting • Remain involved in LMC and Metro Cities activities • Work with Greater MSP and other regional entities -Continue discussions with school districts, counties, watershed districts, neighboring municipalities and other local and state agencies on regional issues -Review police protection services annually 2017 Goals Planning Commission Approved by the Planning Commission at its Thursday, , 2017, meeting • Attend Comprehensive Plan Workshops. • Review sections of the Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations for changes and improvements. • Hold Public Hearings on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. • Schedule regular Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings • Evaluate and revise the parking, landscaping, subdivision, and PUD sections of the City Code • Schedule Planning Commission Meeting Procedures and Land Use Training 2017 Goals Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission Approved by the Parks Commission at their January 11, 2017 meeting •Finish construction of the connection between Foxhill Avenue to Hwy 61 • Identify trails that would not be built with development or road projects •As part of the comprehensive plan update, review and update the trail plan and maps •As part of the comprehensive plan update, develop a vision for future uses of the park • Promote the long-term vision and the short-term uses of the park to residents • Plan and encourage short-term uses of the park • Review the feasibility study • Engage with the City Council and community to look at next steps •Research current trends in community parks •Review and update the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan (2040 Comprehensive Plan updates) •Respond to resident input • Review development applications with respect to the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan • Evaluate the recreation needs of our diverse population •Strengthen and build partnerships •Continue recreation programming and events • Evaluate existing and explore new options for recreation 2017 Goals Economic Development Authority (EDA) Approved by the EDA at its Tuesday, , 2017, meeting • Continue strategic plan to market the City owned property in downtown • Reach out to commercial real estate brokers to promote redevelpoment of the Egg Lake Property -Assist and encourage redevelopment of other properties in downtown • Evaluate broker options for City owned property • Continue low development costs • Continue partnering with local businesses • Continue business visits • Encourage the extension of high speed internet through -out the City • Continue memberships of economic devleopment associations • Encourage moving forward with installing City entrance monument signs • Encourage businesses to identify themselves as being located in Hugo • Review Economic Development section and make recommendations for changes and improvements • Continue partnering with local businesses • Continue to partner with Washington County on its Economic Development Strategic Plan •Invite Economic Development experts to EDA meetings for education and training on certain topics • Meet with property owners with property for sale to see if there is any way the City can help Hugo Historical Commission 2016 - The Year In Review Started our Eagle Scout and Baseball Teams of Hugo projects in January which led to a successful completion - Sent photos to Deb Neutkens for occasional blurb in The Citizen - Framed the photo of the 1941 State Firemen's Convention Discussed security at City Hall, Kathy B attended the meeting and gave a report Vi's passing in April Our group really came together and worked hard for GND display, especially Trina. I think we are a closer group than before. Tried intensive add campaign before Good Neighbor Days. Spent $650 Email from John B who lives in Ontario Canada who had donated a Police Sgt badge in 2010. Wanted a photo of it on display at City Hall or at GND. Purchased a nice display box, added other badges and patches we have, took a photo and sent it to him. Call from Rosella Galedo of Albuquerque, New Mexico requesting info on Peltier family. There were two people in the last year who left messages on my cell phone that they were interested in the HHC. I tried calling them back, left a message and also directed them to fill out a form at City Hall. I wonder if that was a turn-off? Neither of them called back or filled out a form. They may not want to take the time to apply. Had a super productive work day organizing and identifying projects. I think that over time we became less organized and so have a bit of a mess to clean up. There is a whole lot to do on the computer, correcting the 30+ oral histories and printing them off so they can be read by the public at GND and eventually online. Lots of time consuming things to do. We could use someone who likes to work on the computer. - Yellow Ribbon used the display case and we plan on doing that every year after GND. 2017 - Goals for the HHC 1) Add volunteers — especially looking for computer skilled person, place ads regularly 2) Get help with learning Past Perfect (ask Forest Lake Hist Soc or Mn HS) 3) Keep organizing the archives we have 4) Change out items in the display case every 3-4 months 5) Intern next summer? 6) New ideas for projects Longer Range goals Discussion: During the 2016 mid -year budget review, Council requested staff take the long view when preparing for the goal setting session this year. The following ideas are only discussion topics that have come up recently either from within the community, or internally. They are generally unfunded, and may not be accomplished in 2017, but may be discussed in the years to follow, and might generate some interest as the Council does future planning and prepares budgets. Staff will elaborate further at the workshop. Buildings and Equipment 1. Fire Dep't Roof 2. Public Works Expansion a. More space needed in the shop b. Space for the Sheriff's Dept c. Offices? d. Consider expansion of Rice Lake Center 3. City Hall a. Security upgrades b. E -data = elimination of file cabinets c. Technology upgrades to cc chambers, A/V room, Oneka Room d. Remodel of front counter and lobby area 4. Fire Station #2 5. Ladder Truck for Fire Dep't 6. Vactor/letter truck for PW 7. City Hall van 8. Event Center, Community Center and/or performing arts center Recommendations: • Need to consider establishing a building maintenance and replacement fund. • Hire an architect to do a space needs study and facilities analysis. • Consider technology upgrades now, and order new tables for Oneka room Infrastructure, Parks, Amenities 1. Lions park financing and construction 2. Irish Ave Park Planning and Construction 3. New South Water Tower 4. Maintenance plan and budget for trails 5. Playground replacement fund 6. Paving of high volume gravel roads (such as Elmcrest) 7. Garage for city vehicles 8. Southern extension of the Hardwood Creek Trail 9. Improvements for Clearwater Preserve Park 10. Unique outdoor adventure amenities Recommendations: Staffing • It is time to start preparing for construction of the south water tower. • During the Comp Plan update process, the city plans to reach out to the community for ideas and guidance in setting parks priorities. 1. Review City Staffing structure a. Eventual new PW divisions. Such as Parks, Streets, Utilities Divisions b. Succession Planning (and restructuring?) due to future retirements 2. Review city staffing needs a. Finance and Administration b. Parks and Community Development c. Building and Code enforcement d. Economic Development? 3. Temporary and Seasonal employees 4. Review of employee benefits Recommendations: The City is growing, and the staffing needs will change. Those needs won't always coincide with increased revenues from increasing property valuations. • The Administrator and Council will need to determine whether the existing organizational structure will serve the city effectively in the future. • Prepare for seamless transitions when retirements occur. • Review of salary and benefits to encourage longevity. Other Proiects and activities 1. Comp Plan a. Eastern Hugo b. Withrow School Property c. Resiliency Planning d. May lead to new initiatives 2. Excavation of stormwater ponds 3. Stormwater re -use maintenance and operations plans 4. Water Rate Study 5. Acquisition of land in downtown for economic development 6. City development of Egg Lake property 7. Development of next industrial park 8. Beautification efforts 9. City-wide plowing of sidewalks 10. Expanded compost options for residents. Tree waste collection 11. Single -garbage Hauler discussion 12. Fiber to City Hall 13. F -business. e -data, e -applications, e -payments 14. Revised customer service delivery 15. New Communication strategy for emerging generations Recommendations: • The City's Comp plan will include significant involvement with the community, and will be finished by the end of 2018. • The way that residents and businesses are interacting with city hall is changing; we need to ensure that our communication efforts are relevant, and that residents can conduct business with the city in a way that is convenient for them. Main Take Aways: 1. Congratulations, for getting this far. 2. The list is not finished... it's only scratching the surface, and we'd encourage Council to add other items. The obvious point is that staffing and resources are limited. If there is consensus on ideas that should be made as priorities, staff can certainly provide further information including budgetary impacts for consideration during the summer budget workshop. 3. The idea is to convey what's possible. The City can provide more services or fewer services with council direction. If the Council would like to have a deeper discussion of the flat tax rate, discuss adjustments to the flat tax rate, or review other taxing methods, we can do that in a separate workshop. )Wi,nnesila December 21, 2016 Washington County Legislative Agenda — 2017 This document represents Washington County's State Legislative interests for the year 2017. The county is a member of and in general supports the agendas of the Minnesota Inter -County Association (MICA) and the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC). The recommendations and platform of these two organizations are included as a part of this document. In addition, the county has legislative priorities that are specific to county interests and we have included these on separate sheets with detailed explanations as to the issues and rationale for support. The county would like the support of the entire delegation in these highlighted areas. Table of Contents Page Washington County's Vision, Mission, Goals, and Values............................................................................. 1 Washington County Contact Information....................................................................................................... 2 County Specific Priority Items: Local Property Tax Protection Funding of Mandated Services................................................................................................................ 3 State Funding for Safety Net Services..................................................................................................... 6 Financial Incentives for Solid Waste Processing....................................................................................... 8 Community Corrections Funding...........................................................................................................10 State Funding for Minnesota Eligibility Technology System (METS) Improvements ............................ 11 Transit Transitway Development in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area............................................................ 13 Gateway Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit..................................................................................................... 14 New Bus Route 363 — Red Rock Corridor Phase I Implementation........................................................ 15 Expanding the Regional Transit Capital Area in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area .............................. 16 FreightRail..............................................................................................................................................17 Support for a Study of the 1-94/494/694 System Interchange...................................................................18 Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council Funding for the Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor ProposaI19 Red Rock Crossing Tax Increment Financing District.................................................................................. 22 Tax Forfeited Land Conveyance................................................................................................................. 24 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources — White Bear Lake Lawsuit ............................................... 26 County Commissioner Appointment.......................................................................................................... 28 In -Person Absentee Voting Procedures..................................................................................................... 29 Support Increased Funding for Aquatic Invasive Species County Aid ........................................................ 30 Local Wetland Replacement Program....................................................................................................... 31 Appendices: Suggested Mandates for Consideration of Repeal or Reform Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) Legislative Policy Positions When Finalized Minnesota Inter -County Association (MICA) Legislative Platform When Finalized washCm#gton0WMM%%MM&# WASHINGTON COUNTY'S VISION, MISSION, GOALS, AND VALUES Vision: A great place to live, work, and play ... today and tomorrow. Mission: Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation, and the cooperation of dedicated people. Goals: To promote the health, safety, and quality of life of citizens. To provide accessible, high-quality services in a timely and respectful manner. To address today's needs while proactively planning for the future. To maintain public trust through responsible use of public resources, accountability, and openness of government. Values: 1. Ethical: to ensure public trust through fairness, consistency, and transparency. 2. Stewardship: to demonstrate tangible, cost-effective results, and protect public resources. 3. Quality: to ensure that services delivered to the public are up to the organization's highest standards. 4. Responsive: to deliver services that are accessible, timely, respectful, and efficient. 5. Respectful: to believe in and support the dignity and value of all members of this community. 6. Leadership: to actively advocate for and guide the county toward a higher quality of life. WASHINGTON COUNTY CONTACT INFORMATION District 1 Commissioner Fran Miron 651-430-6211 E-mail: Fran.Miron@co.washington.mn.us District 2 Commissioner Stan Karwoski 651-430-6212 E-mail: Stan.Karwoski@co.washington.mn.us District 3 Commissioner Gary Kriesel 651-430-6213 E-mail: Gary.Kriesel@co.washington.mn.us District 4 Commissioner Karla Bigham 651-430-6214 E-mail: Karla.Bigham@co.washington.mn.us District 5 Commissioner Lisa Weik 651-430-6215 E-mail: Lisa.Weik@co.washington.mn.us Molly O'Rourke, County Administrator 651-430-6002 E-mail: Molly.ORourke@co.washington.mn.us Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator 651-430-6003 E-mail: Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us Address: Washington County Government Center Office of Administration P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 John Kaul, Legislative Representative 15500 -42nd Street South Afton, MN 55001 E-mail: iikaul@aol.com 2 612-485-9199 FUNDING FOR MANDATED SERVICES Position: Washington County seeks to protect our local taxpayers from any further shifts of state costs to the county property tax (which is a regressive and unpopular form of taxation) and the potential erosion in our ability to deliver high quality, essential services in an efficient manner. We encourage the legislature and the Governor to provide flexibility and full funding for any mandates imposed on local governments. Issue: County governments are tasked by both the state and federal governments to carry out County Program Aid (CPA) mandated programs on their behalf. Nearly 80% Compared to Levy Funding of all operating costs in the annual county =012 budget are to pay for mandated services. $10 52% Counties have identified potential reforms, Population G..h 0.51% repeals, or changes that could reduce costs by $9 050% over $8 million a year just for Washington $$ • Inflatipn Growth as% o County (see Appendix A for a list of potential $' 1 8.00% 46%M- s%M- < items items for reform). The cost savings from $e °°% potential reforms and repeals continue to grow 1.12% 1 1.12% $5 42% as new mandates are passed and the cost of $a T34%j V�dJli�1gton 40% existing mandates increase. In just the past few nolo 201120122013 zola zols 2016 zov Proposed years, the potential savings has risen from just -*-CPA fLevy% more than $6 million to now nearly $8.5 million. Washington County Federal and state financial assistance is provided but does not cover the full cost of providing the mandated services and in many situations the amount of aid does not even cover the increases in costs from one year to the next to provide those services. The shifting of costs to the county property tax places an unstainable burden on local property taxpayers and inhibits the county's ability to provide high quality, essential services. County Program Aid (CPA) is provided by the state to help fund state mandated services. The increase in aid in 2012 and 2013 allowed the county to lessen its reliance on the property tax. A slight decrease in aid in 2016, followed by a small increase in 2017, has meant that aid amounts have remained basically unchanged since 2014. Cumulative Population, Inflation, and Levy Growth since 2010 12.00% 10.00% 0 N 8.00% d 6.00% L 0 4.00% 2.00% UXU"/a 2010 2011 =012 1 2013 2014 2015 2016 Population G..h 0.51% • Inflatipn Growth 1.30% 4.46% 1 6.53% 1 8.00% 1 9.62% 9.82% 10.83% —Net Levy Growth 0.94% 1.27% 1 1.12% 1 1.12% 1 1.79% T34%j V�dJli�1gton 37 G _ � Washington County strives to provide services in a highly effective and efficient manner. The county has the second lowest operating costs per capita of the seven metropolitan counties and the third lowest levy per capita. The county has the lowest human services administrative costs per capita of all Minnesota counties and one of the lowest county tax rates. The county holds the highest credit rating (AAA) from both major rating agencies. The overall growth of the county levy over the past five years has been considerably lower than the county's growth in population and the growth in inflation. However, inadequate state resources threaten our ability to continue providing the core functions of county government at a reasonable cost to county property taxpayers. Washington County continues to implement service delivery changes in order to minimize costs. However, in recent years, the state has eased its own fiscal problems by shifting certain costs and responsibilities to the counties. The combination of passing on costs, and inadequate increases in county aid to pay for increased costs to provide mandated services, is eroding the few county services that serve the public at large. These factors, when taken together, are significantly impairing our ability to maintain and expand our core services during a period of increasing population and changing demographics, and the corresponding pressure for citizen and safety net services. Counties have identified many mandated services that could be repealed, reformed or funded. For example, the state could eliminate the county share of certain state court costs, reduce the mental health services maintenance of effort, eliminate recently adopted increases in the county cost share for many human service programs, and eliminate costly requirements for publications of county financial information and instead allow for web publication. Support and Opposition: Support will come from other counties and other local governments that seek mandate relief. Opposition may come from those that support mandates. Previous Consideration: The county has advocated this position for many years. No Action: Counties will continue to be responsible for new, unfunded mandates that will likely result in increasing pressure on local property taxpayers. 4 Financial Implications: County levy increases are likely to be larger than otherwise necessary if the state and federal governments would fully fund the costs of mandated services. Contact Persons: Molly O'Rourke, Administrator Washington County 651-430-6003 Molly.O'Rourke@co.washington.mn.us 5 Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator Washington County 651-430-6002 Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us STATE FUNDING FOR SAFETY NET SERVICES Position: Washington County supports ensuring adequate state funding for essential health and human service safety net programs without shifts in funding from the state budget to the county property taxpayers. Issue: Year after year the Minnesota Legislature balances the State budget by shifting safety net costs to counties. In recent years those shifts have come in the form of increases to the county share of residential costs at state-run safety net institutions. One significant problem is that these actions are often taken in the wee hours of the legislative session as legislators finalize budgets in conference committees opposition may come from. Support and Opposition: Minnesota Counties are united in their opposition to these ongoing cost shifts. The Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators, Minnesota Inter -County Association, and the Association of Minnesota Counties support the position. Human service advocacy organizations that are focused on getting their legislative agenda included in the final legislation and are not concerned about who is paying the bill and the regressive nature of the property tax system. Previous Consideration: The issue has been indirectly referenced in the county position on taxpayer protection. It does parallel a long-standing county position opposing maintenance of effort requirements. Counties have not had success eliminating those over the years, despite very compelling arguments that they are an antiquated means of funding important core services that seriously interfere with innovation and good practice. No Action: Counties will be forced to continue to raise property taxes which are not predicated on people's ability to pay in order to pay for services that should be included in the state safety net budget. Financial Implications: County Human Services Cost Shares: Minnesota Security Hospital, St. Peter o Counties responsible for 10% of the daily cost o Counties responsible for 50% of the cost for the Transitional Program Forensic Nursing Home, St. Peter o Counties responsible for 10% of the daily cost o Counties responsible for 50% of cost when the individual no longer requires program (note: counties have no say as to when this decision occurs, nor are there suitable community options available) Community Behavioral Health Homes (CBHH): o Counties responsible for 100% of cost for individuals who are determined by the State to no longer meet medical criteria for placement Community Restoration (to determine competency to stand trial): o Counties responsible for 20% of the daily cost while deemed medically necessary. o Counties responsible for 50% of the daily cost when individual no longer requires program services o Counties responsible for 100% of the daily cost if charges are dropped. 11 Minnesota Sex Offender Program o Counties responsible for 10% of daily cost prior to August 1, 2011. 25% for any new individuals after August 1, 2011. The fiscal notes for these shifts are a moving target for counties as they depend on utilization. However the annual cost is significant and county control over them is minimal. Proposal Contact Persons: Kathy Mickelson, Adult Services Manager Washington County Community Services, Stillwater MN 651-430-6532 Kathy. Mickelson@co.washington.mn. us Michelle Kemper, Deputy Director Washington County Community Services, Stillwater MN 651-430-6474 Michelle.Kemper@co.washington.mn.us 7 FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR SOLID WASTE PROCESSING Position: Washington County supports legislation that will provide additional state funding or incentives to counties that are providing or financially supporting waste processing, thus exceeding objectives for landfill diversion. Issue: Washington County has historically developed and implemented an integrated waste management system which recovers valuable materials and energy from waste rather than landfilling. Together with our partner, Ramsey County, we have purchased the Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Center, a waste -to -energy processing facility in Newport, MN, thus renewing our commitment to these longstanding efforts. These actions achieve all of the objectives of the Minnesota Waste Management Hierarchy and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan. While all Minnesota Counties received funding from the State Waste Management Tax (SWMT) in the form of SCORE Grants, there are few incentives to exceed state standards or provide innovative planning, programming and regulatory services. The SCORE funds are allocated to Counties based on a formula made up of a base amount and the balance of the appropriated funds based on population. Counties, such as Washington County, that make significant financial investments in solid waste management practices which promote the state hierarchy should be rewarded beyond the basic formula for SCORE funding. Several State and Regional studies, plans and other documents support the development of financial incentives for improved solid waste management. 2014 Office of Legislative Auditor Report 2011-2030 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan Dec. 2011, Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board 2015 Solid Waste Policy Report In a letter to County Commissioner Gary Kriesel from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Assistant Commissioner Kirk Koudelka, dated September 21, 2015, he states, "The MPCA acknowledges the need to address each of the counties contributions to reaching the goals. The MPCA will examine possible incentives for Counties that are exceeding objectives for landfill diversion. The MPCA also intends to continue to measure the region as a whole, while holding individual counties accountable for their decisions." Support and Opposition: Ramsey County would likely support this initiative as their actions are the same or similar to those of Washington County. Hennepin County would likely support this initiative as their facility results in landfill diversion. MPCA has indicated its willingness to research, develop and support incentives for improved solid waste management practices. The Office of Legislative Auditor (OLA) report also included recommendations for incentives to the Legislature. M Some Counties that are not actively processing waste and/or are operating and supportive of landfills may be opposed. Some waste haulers may oppose this if the resulting method of incentive might increase their cost of services or develop some form of competitive advantage to haulers that use waste to energy facilities. Previous Consideration: The County Board advocated this position last year. No Action: If no action is taken, lack of equity among County Solid Waste Management programs and services will continue to exist. Washington County taxpayers currently subsidize taxpayers in other Counties in the Metropolitan Region, as other Counties benefit from regional solid waste accomplishments without making system investments comparable to Washington County. Financial Implications: In 2017, Washington County will collect and spend approximately $4.4 million on Waste Processing. Proposal Contact Persons: Lowell Johnson, Director Public Health and Environment 651-430-6725 Lowell.Johnson@co.washington.mn.us D Judy Hunter, Senior Program Manager Public Health and Environment 651-430-4031 Judy. Hunter@co.washington.mn.us COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FUNDING Position: Washington County supports increasing state funding for supervision of offenders in the community each year of the biennium at a rate equal to or greater than the cost of inflation. Issue: The burden for funding Community Corrections continues to shift towards counties due to the lack of additional state funding. This shift has occurred while at the same time saving the state money by keeping prison use low. Washington County has participated in the Community Corrections Act since 1978. State funding for Community Corrections came from a belief in the effectiveness of local services, and the opportunity for the State to save money on prison beds. By encouraging counties to develop alternatives the hope was that more offenders would be sentenced to local alternatives and not sent to prison. That is why the Community Corrections Act Subsidy exists for counties. Eighty five percent of probation services in Minnesota are delivered at the county level. Year after year Governors' budgets fail to include adequate funding for probation to counties. We are grateful for the modest increase in funding for state fiscal year 2016; however, no new money was included for state fiscal 2017. This left Washington County to pick-up 100 percent of the new costs for 2017. According to Minnesota Management and Budget's February 2016 forecast, inflation is estimated to be 2.7 percent in 2018 and 2019. Support and Opposition: The Minnesota Association of Community Corrections Act Counties (MACCAC), the Minnesota Inter - County Association (MICA), and the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) all support increased funding for community supervision. The Minnesota Department of Corrections has demonstrated limited support for funding Community Corrections. Previous Consideration: As has often been the case, the Governor failed to ask the Legislature for any increased funding for county community corrections services in his proposed budget for state fiscal 2017. No Action: Counties will continue to assume a larger financial responsibility for funding community corrections from the levy. Contact Person: Tom Adkins, Director Community Corrections 651-430-6902 Tom.Adkins@co.washington.mn.us 10 STATE FUNDING FOR MINNESOTA ELIGIBILITY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM (METS) IMPROVEMENTS Position: Washington County advocates for sufficient funding in the 2018-2019 biennium in order to make substantial and rapid improvements to METS so that county staff can effectively, efficiently and reliably serve clients. At least $10 million for each year of the coming biennium is needed to achieve significant improvement and efficiencies in METS. This state appropriation would bring in approximately $100 million in matching federal funds for each year of the biennium. Issue: Counties provide eligibility determinations and ongoing management services for over 1 million Minnesotans enrolled in Medical Assistance. The inefficiencies in existing METS functionality have resulted in extensive labor-intensive manual workarounds and poor customer service. At the same time, 280,000 additional individuals receiving Medical Assistance are being migrated from the aging legacy computer system into METS. Because METS does not function well, counties have been forced to add staff to meet workload demands. As of 2017, the projected total cost of these staffing increases will be over $27 million statewide per year. The current state budget level for METS is mostly for maintenance and repair; it does not include adequate funding for the development of new or additional functionality, nor achieve progress in the efficiency gains needed to remove the cumbersome manual processes currently implemented in response to functionality issues. Support and Opposition: Counties are united in their support for improving METS functionality. The Minnesota Inter -County Association, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators are all expected to support METS improvements this legislative session. Opposition to adequately funding METS may come from legislators who do not want to spend more money on the system and/or favor a different approach. Previous consideration: N/A No Action: Counties will continue to manage Medical Assistance cases in an inefficient manner due to inadequate system functionality, at a higher cost to county tax payers as a result of staff additions needed to manage the work. Financial Implications: Counties have added significant staffing resources in the last several years to compensate for system limitations, which will cost Minnesota counties over $27 million statewide in 2017. Although counties receive state and federal funding to administer the Medical Assistance program, approximately 50% of those costs are born by counties. 11 Proposal Contact Persons: Linda Bixby, Economic Support Division Manager Washington County Community Services, Stillwater, MN 651-430-6472 Linda.Bixby@co.washington.mn.us Michelle Kemper, Interim Director Washington County Community Services, Stillwater, MN 651-430-6474 Michelle.Kemper@co.washington.mn.us 12 TRANSITWAY DEVELOPMENT IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Position: Washington County supports the State Legislature implementing additional new revenue needed for the development and construction of transit in the metropolitan area. Issue: The process for developing transitways in the region relies on local initiatives and funding, under the framework of the Metropolitan Council's vision and plans. In 2008 the Legislature created the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), which is comprised of member counties, currently Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, and Dakota. CTIB has developed a long-term vision for transitway expansion that supplements Metropolitan Council's regional vision for transit. To support this vision, the counties implemented a self-imposed 0.25% sales and use tax and a $20 motor vehicle excise tax that generates approximately $115 million per year for transitway expansion (capital and operations). The purpose of the CTIB is to collect these sales tax funds, and to grant those funds to transitway projects in the Twin Cities area. The CTIB funds transitway projects that meet eligibility criteria established through its Transit Investment Framework and that are found to be consistent with the regional long-range transit plan established by the Metropolitan Council. Financial analysis indicates that current revenue sources will not be sufficient to fully construct the Metropolitan Council vision for transit, nor the CTIB long-term vision for transitway expansion. Additional funding will be necessary to plan and construct these regional improvements. Because these improvements are regional in nature, Washington County believes additional revenue for transit and transitway expansion should be implemented by the State of Minnesota and revenue for transitway expansion directed to CTIB for distribution and implementation. Support and Opposition: Supported by the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) and the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. The county would need to work with the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) and the Minnesota Inter -county Association (MICA) to develop strong regional support for this proposal. No Action: If the proposal is not enacted, the metropolitan area will not have sufficient funding to implement the transit vision. Financial Implications: Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of funding. Contact Person: Jan Lucke, Transit/Transportation Planning Manager Washington County Public Works 651-430-4316 ian.lucke@co.washington.mn.us 13 GATEWAY GOLD LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT Position: The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA) is requesting $3 million in state funds for engineering, environmental analysis, and preparation of an application to seek Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds. Issue: The Gateway Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit depends on State funding to continue development. This transitway is critical to providing east metro residents a public transportation option. Respondents to the 2015 Washington County Residential survey scored "availability of public transportation" as the lowest rated characteristic of Washington County. By 2030 communities along the corridor will grow by 40% and add more than 60,000 jobs. Every day more than 90,000 vehicles cross over the St. Croix River. By the time a commuter reaches downtown Saint Paul, the number of vehicles increases to 150,000. The project will create new, consistent, and all - day service within a dedicated guideway, in conjunction with existing express service. This will provide connections to key destinations, improve mobility, provide a cost-effective solution, promote economic development, and preserve community quality of life. In 2017, Gateway Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit will transition to the State to complete the project development phase of work, which includes completion of an environmental assessment and preliminary engineering (approximately 30% design). This will take approximately two years to complete. Support and Opposition: Support has come from the Gateway Corridor Commission; the Woodbury, Oakdale, and St. Paul business chambers; the Metropolitan Council; the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), East Metro Strong, and others associated with the implementation of multi -modal transportation options. In addition, at a press conference in Woodbury on September 1, 2016, Governor Dayton announced he would include the $3 million state funding request in his 2017 bonding bill. In addition to the support of Governor Dayton, this project also enjoys bipartisan support from area legislators. Opposition may come from those opposed to expansion of transit in the region. Previous Consideration: The WCRRA requested $5 million in state bond funds in 2014 for this work and was awarded $2 million. The WCRAA requested the balance of $3 million in 2015 and 2016. This amount was not awarded. This request for the balance of $3 million is still needed to fully fund the next phase of work. No Action: The next phase requires approval from the FTA. The FTA will not grant approval until the state share of funding is committed to the project. If the request is not met, work will be delayed. The annual cost of a project delay is $15 million. Financial Implications: Allocation of $3 million in state funds for preliminary engineering would go towards the state's 10% overall share. Contact Person: Jan Lucke, Transit/Transportation Planning Manager Washington County Public Works 651-430-4316 14 Jan. Lucke@co.washington.mn.us NEW BUS ROUTE 363 (RED ROCK CORRIDOR PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION) Position: The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA) supports funds for a three-year demonstration of a new bus route (Route 363) that would provide all -day, bi-directional bus service between Saint Paul and Cottage Grove. Issue: The existing transit service in the Red Rock corridor is peak period express service designed for downtown workers with 9 am — 5 pm work schedules. New Route 363 would provide all -day service every 30 minutes in both directions between St. Paul and Cottage Grove, expanding multimodal travel options in this corridor. All day local service will allow people whose travel needs are not met with peak -period, peak direction express service to complete trips on transit. Examples include workers within the corridor during traditional and non-traditional work shift times, reverse -commuters, and people making school, human service, social and recreational trips. Local stops within the corridor will also increase access for people currently unable to use the park-and-ride based commuter -express service, including those with limited access to an automobile. Support and Opposition: Support comes from the Red Rock Corridor Commission, Metro Transit and East Metro Strong. Opposition may come from those opposed to expansion of transit in the region. Previous Consideration: Through the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan, county and city partners have conducted a thorough investigation of transit needs in the corridor. The plan is a phased approach with a near-term need for new local bus service and a long-term need for bus rapid transit that includes high -frequency service, robust stations and enhanced parking facilities. Washington County collaborated with Metro Transit to submit a Regional Solicitation Transit Expansion application in July 2016 to fund the purchase of four buses and operate new, local bus service in Red Rock Corridor between St. Paul and Cottage Grove in the amount of $7,382,834. This application was not funded. No Action: Without action the transit needs of the southeastern Twin Cities region will not be met and there will be no all day, bi-directional bus service in the Red Rock Corridor. Financial Implications: Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified to extend the life of the project beyond demonstration. The financial implications depend on the source of funding and the plan developed. Contact Person: Jan Lucke, Transit/Transportation Planning Manager Washington County Public Works 651-430-4316 15 Jan. Lucke@co.washington.mn.us EXPANDING THE REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL AREA IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Position: Washington County supports expansion of the Regional Transit Capital area to include the entire seven - county metropolitan area to provide the Metropolitan Council with funding for transit capital improvement. Issue: The Metropolitan Council is the planning agency for the seven -county metropolitan area and as a result, is responsible for developing the regional vision for transit. The Regional Transit Capital (RTC) area, formerly the Transit Taxing District, was established in the 1970's to provide the Metropolitan Council with property tax funding for transit capital improvements. Communities placed into the RTC were chosen based on the original Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary. Since the 1970's the Twin Cities has added nearly 975,000 people with little change to the RTC boundary. Expansion of the RTC area will more accurately reflect the current urbanized area and the area benefiting from transit and will coincide with the boundaries of the Metropolitan Council. The current taxing district boundaries do not equitably share the cost of providing transit services in the metropolitan region. Support and Opposition: The county would need to work with the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) and the Minnesota Inter -county Association (MICA) to develop strong regional support for this proposal. Previous Consideration: County Board Position for several years. No Action: If the proposal is not enacted, the metropolitan area will not have sufficient funding to implement the transit vision and the current inequities will continue. Financial Implications: Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of funding. Contact Person: Jan Lucke, Transit/Transportation Planning Manager Washington County Public Works 651-430-4316 Jan. Lucke@co.washington.mn.us 16 FREIGHT RAIL Position: Washington County supports increased state funding for the rehabilitation, preservation and improvement of rail lines, including short haul lines and rail safety, with the goal of maintaining and improving needed freight service, and supporting safe crossings. Issue: Rail service is an important component of a balanced transportation system. Rail can improve the efficiency of our entire transportation system; one rail freight car can carry the equivalent of four truck loads and can carry a ton of cargo 480 miles on one gallon of fuel. Rail infrastructure is both ageing and lacking modern safety features at many locations. Washington County is home to seven rail lines owned by five railroad companies. 1. BNSF Railway 2. Canadian Pacific 3. Union Pacific 4. Wisconsin Central 5. Minnesota Commercial The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released a legislatively mandated freight rail safety report on Dec. 31, 2014. Recommended crossing improvement projects are in Big Lake, Clear Lake, Elk River (two sites), Perham, St. Cloud, St. Paul Park, Wadena, and Winona. Other projects requiring additional funding are also recommended, including grade separations. All recommendations for specific crossings improve public safety by reducing the risk of train -vehicle accidents. These improvements are important as much of the freight moving through the county is volatile crude oil. Washington County supports state funding for improved rail crossing safety as well as additional funding for grade separations between roads and rails at busy intersections. As rail infrastructure continues to age, the cost to rehabilitate can exceed available resources for short - haul line owners and operators. These lines provide an important service and boost the local economy. Washington County supports state funding, grants, and loans to develop these improvements. Additionally, improvements to freight rail lines can also benefit passenger rail service, using the same tracks. Support and Opposition: Supported by the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC). No Action: If the proposal is not enacted, rail safety and capacity needs will remain unmet. Financial Implications: Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of funding. Contact Person: Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer & Deputy Public Works Director Washington County Public Works 651-430-4339 Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us 17 SUPPORT FOR A STUDY OF THE 1-94/494/694 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE Position: Washington County supports the allocation of funding to the Minnesota Department of Transportation to perform a feasibility study to develop a strategic plan and determine improvements needed to the 1- 94/494/694 System Interchange area, to include the system interchange itself, and adjacent interchanges of 1-94 & Radio Drive/Inwood Ave, 1-94 & Century Ave, 1-694 & 10th Street and 1-494 & Tamarack Road. Issue: The 1-94 Corridor in the east metro is a vital link between the Twin Cities to Chicago and the East Coast. This interchange is the second most traveled in the State and due to the outdated cloverleaf design, experiences congestion as vehicles merge and weave across multiple lanes. Additionally, the design does not accommodate the significant amount of freight traffic that uses it. In 2019 MnDOT proposes to implement bridge preservation and mobility improvements. The design will improve the mobility and safety of the weave section between the loops and the southbound 494/694 freeway through lanes. However, this is a short term solution and does not solve the fundamental problem of the outdated cloverleaf design that is not adequate to serve the demands of a growing and vibrant east metro area. The study should develop a strategic plan and determine improvements needed to develop an interchange that will eliminate congestion, and provide safe and efficient movement of vehicles and freight. The study should include and evaluate traffic volumes including heavy vehicle volumes and classifications, current hours of congestion, impacts and barriers to freight movement, traffic safety, development potential and impacts to economic development, coordination with Gateway Corridor Gold Line planning, and impacts to adjacent interchange operations. Support and Opposition: Supported by the Washington and Ramsey Counties, City of Woodbury, City of Oakdale. Potential opposition from various state agencies. No Action: If the proposal is not enacted, the 2019 project will be completed with no strategic vision for the future of this interchange. Financial Implications: Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of funding and the plan developed. Contact Person: Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer & Deputy Public Works Director Washington County Public Works 651-430-4339 Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us 18 SUPPORT LESSARD SAMS OUTDOOR HERITAGE COUNCIL FUNDING FOR THE CARNELIAN CREEK CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PROPOSAL Position: Washington County supports $2.458 million in Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) funding to protect 735 acres of high quality wildlife habitat in in the Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor in May Township. Issue: The LSOHC has the responsibility of providing annual funding recommendations to the legislature from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. The Outdoor Heritage Fund is one of four funds created by the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment and is funded from a 1/8% sales tax. The LSOHC recommended the project for funding on September 29, 2016. Final approval of state funds is provided by the 2017 legislature. The Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor proposal would protect through conservation easement over 10 miles of shoreline on Terrapin, Mays and Clear Lakes and 735 acres of forests, wetlands and grasslands that provide critical habitat, and promote biodiversity and expand wildlife connections for more than 70 species in the greatest conservation need. The state funding will match a county contribution from its Land and Water Legacy program and a significant land owner donation of value. Support and Opposition: The Washington Conservation District and May Township have both provided letters of support for the project. Support is also likely from a number of other organizations that have participated in stakeholder meetings on the project over the past year, including the Trust for Public Land, the Minnesota Food Association, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Conservation Corp, and others. No local opposition is expected. Previous Consideration: The County Board has held five workshops related to this project, with the first workshop occurring on August 4, 2015 and the most recent in June of 2016. Board approval was given to develop the project, to fund an appraisal and submit the state funding application. No Action: If the state funds are not provided for this project to match the county and landowner contributions, the project will either not proceed, or will be scaled back significantly. If the project does not go forward, there is a potential for this property in May Township to be developed and not protected. Financial Implications: The county would utilize its Land and Water Legacy Program funding to provide a match for the state funds. If this project is approved, the state funding and landowner donation could equal roughly 60-65% of the project total cost. Contact Person: Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator Office of Administration 651-430-6003 Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us 19 Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor: Phase 1 Washington County is Minnesota's oldest county located in the east metro area. Warner Nature Center is the oldest Nature Center in Minnesota located in the Town of May in northern Washington County. The Minnesota Land Trust is a nationally - accredited conservation organization with a twenty-year history of protecting Minnesota's most unique wildlife habitats around the state. For more information, please contact MLT's Wayne Ostlie, Director of Land Protection at 651-917-6292 WHAT IS THE CARNELIAN CREEK CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PROPOSAL? This first phase of the Carnelian Creek Habitat Corridor Program aims to protect 735 acres of high quality wildlife habitat in the east metro area with a conservation easement. It will protect 10 miles of shoreline on Terrapin, Mays and Clear lakes and 735 acres of forests, wetlands and grasslands that provide critical habitat, promote biodiversity and expand wildlife connections to the St. Croix River for more than 70 Species in Greatest Conservation Need. This project is a partnership of the Outdoor Heritage Fund, Minnesota Land Trust, Washington County and Warner Nature Center. HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL SUPPORT STATE GOALS? This project reflects a number of goals outlined in the Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan, Tomorrow's Habitat for the Wild and Rare Plan and Washington County's Land and Water Legacy Program. Specifically, we aim to address these goals by: •'• Protecting critical • lakes, shorelines, bogs, wetlands •'• Protecting one of the • largest remaining forests in the metro area •'• Targeting a unique • landscape that has historical value to fish, game and wildlife W RE THE OUTCOMES OF THE PROGRAM? Protected wildlife habitat for more than 70 Species in Greatest Conservation Need Protected aquatic habitat and water quality of the watershed Diverse forest habitat protected from development and fragmentation Increased participation of private landowners in habitat projects Protect prior public investment in shoreland and forest conservation in the area Washington oomftftmwo +Count 000--= " �_M 0 0- C - I d - 111,::9:7 "-1 The more than 2,700 acre Carnelian Creek Corridor Priority Conservation Area is a mosaic of lake, wetland and upland community types connecting Big Marine, Mud, Turtle, Long, Staples, Northern Terrapin, Southern Terrapin, Mays, Clear, East Boot, West Boot, Bass and Big Carnelian lakes. It contains aspen -oak land, oak openings and barrens, Big Woods (oak, maple, basswood, hickory), wet prairies, conifer bogs and swamps, and open water lakes. The corridor is a host to Blandings Turtle, the Common Snapping Turtle, Eastern Fox, Milk Snake, Red - shouldered Hawk, Bald Eagle, Rose - Breasted Grosbeak and American Woodcock. Varner & Wilder Properties "-v [framer Nature Center Build= Exchmon l - ^.x M Ear w Area Wr rNature Center Land (424 acres) ., _. M lderForest Lmdir588 acres} Easement Total Acreage .acres Total Shoreline Protected --55,000 feet N W E This more than $10 million project aims to leverage $5.2 million from the Outdoor Heritage Fund and a non -state match from Washington County and Warner Nature Center. 21 RED ROCK CROSSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Position: Washington County supports the Washington County Community Development Agency (CDA) request for a special law which waives certain provisions to Red Rock Crossing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts within the City of Newport. Issue: The Red Rock Crossing area is approximately 188 acres located in the City of Newport, south of 1-494, north of 15th Street between the Mississippi River and Highway 61. The Washington County CDA and the City of Newport are working together under a Joint Powers Agreement to redevelop the Red Rock Crossing area and build on the County's transit investments. Red Rock Crossing has had and continues to have extensive impediments to redevelopment. The municipal vision for the area is to develop approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial, office and light industrial uses and over 460 units of various types of housing. The current market value of the area is approximately $6.1 million and if the municipal vision became a reality, the market value is estimated to be in excess of $98.9 million. The issue is that the cost of the relocation, demolition, site preparation, mass grading, installation of public utilities, streets and sidewalks are in excess of the value of the property. The problem is compounded because the redevelopment will take at least 10 to 15 years to develop while a substantial amount of the costs must be incurred at its inception. In addition, to maximize density and market value some structured parking may be necessary. These redevelopment activities and public infrastructure improvements are expected to cost $14 million. A portion of these expenses will be reimbursed by selling the developable parcels to private developers. In addition, tax increment financing is crucial to help fill the remaining estimated $6.3 million gap. Minnesota statutes related to tax increment financing districts are ideally suited to development that proceed on a relatively short timeline and may involve only one or two buildings. Based on a recent market study and current lending requirements, private sector development plans may not be able to correlate to the legal timeframes currently prescribed. Second, it is anticipated that developments will occur in many phases spanning more than a decade. Many communities have obtained special laws related to tax increment financing to facilitate comparable redevelopment projects. The proposed special law would provide greater flexibility in the timelines associated with creating districts and the start of tax increment collection, facilitate site assembly, and allow for more flexible use of TIF funding. Support and Opposition: Supported by the Washington County CDA and the City of Newport. Previous Consideration: The special law was proposed in the 2016 legislation session but was held over in the respective tax committees. 22 No Action: If the proposal is not enacted, tax increment may be limited to repay the redevelopment expenses incurred by the CDA unless redevelopment adheres to the existing rules and laws. Financial Implications: The tax increment financing is crucial to help fill the estimated $6.3 million gap in the Red Rock Crossing redevelopment budget. Contact Person: Barbara Dacy, Executive Director Washington County Community Development Agency (651) 458-6556 bdacv@wchra.com 23 TAX FORFEITED LAND CONVEYANCE Position: Washington County supports legislation authorizing the sale of this parcel to the County for market value. Issue: Parcel 32.032.20.33.0001 in the City of Scandia forfeited to the State of Minnesota in 1938. The forfeited land parcel is approximately .41 acres and includes approximately 277.6 feet of waterfront on Big Marine Lake. The parcel is adjacent to Big Marine Park Reserve and is not accessible by road. Washington County desires to include this property in the Big Marine Park Reserve to protect the property and allow public enjoyment of the property. Minnesota statute requires the sale of tax forfeited land with 150 feet or more of waterfront to be authorized by special legislation. Support and Opposition: The City of Scandia does not desire this parcel. The county contacted the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the DNR indicated that they would not object to special legislation authorizing the sale of this parcel to Washington County. Previous Consideration: None No Action: If no action is taken the parcel will continue to be an administrative burden and unavailable for public use or enjoyment. 24 Financial Implications: Acquisition costs are dependent on the market value set by the county board after the legislation is passed. The typical market value set by the county board for vacant parcels authorized for sale to local municipalities is approximately $1,000 an acre. In addition to acquisition costs there are administrative fees of approximately $100. Contact Persons: Jennifer Wagenius, Director Property Records and Taxpayer Services 651-430-6182 Jennifer.Wagenius@co.washington.mn.us Wayne H Sandberg P.E., County Engineer & Deputy Director Public Works 651-430-4339 Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us 25 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - WHITE BEAR LAKE LAWSUIT Position: Washington County adopted the Washington County Groundwater Plan 2014-2024 in September of 2014. This plan specifically calls to monitor the outcome of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lawsuit and evaluate how the final disposition will impact groundwater management decisions in the county. Washington County does not support the White Bear Lake Settlement Agreement as it currently stands for the following reasons: The DNR does not agree that science supports the plaintiffs' theory that groundwater pumping is the primary cause of low water levels in White Bear Lake; however in the settlement agreement the DNR has agreed to support action, at great expense, to convert groundwater - supplied communities to a surface water supply. A second study by the United States Geological Survey to analyze which groundwater wells, if any, may have the greatest impact on White Bear Lake is still pending. The impact on surface water sustainability is not addressed and should be studied before such drastic and costly actions are mandated. The financial implications of the settlement agreement need to be addressed as actions mandated in the settlement will affect economic development. The affected communities have been planning for growth as directed by the Metropolitan Council, investing millions of dollars in groundwater -based water supply infrastructure. The settlement agreement instructs the DNR to work with the 13 communities to implement conservation efforts. Groundwater is a regional issue and reduction goals should be shared across the aquifer. An aggregate goal of at least seventeen percent reduction in water use was set without disclosing how the target goal was calculated. The settlement addresses the North and East Groundwater Management Area (GWMA), stating the DNR agrees the entire North and East GWMA should use surface water instead of groundwater. This decision is not based on fact or data. The studies to support this claim have not been completed. The DNR's North and East GWMA Plan is awaiting final approval from the DNR commissioner. Issue: In the past several years, White Bear Lake's water levels have been at the lower end of their historic range. Experts disagree about the fundamental causes of the low levels. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was sued in Ramsey County District Court in 2012 (Court File No. 62 -CV -13- 2414), with the plaintiffs (White Bear Lake Restoration Association and White Bear Lake Homeowners' Association) claiming that, by allowing thirteen local communities to use groundwater for their public water supply, the DNR has permitted too much groundwater use in the area, thus lowering White Bear Lake. Two of the thirteen communities (City of White Bear Lake and White Bear Township) elected to intervene in the litigation. The plaintiffs asked the judge to set a lake water elevation, reduce local communities' groundwater use, and require the agency to augment the lake with an additional water supply. 26 The lawsuit was settled through mediation between the DNR and the plaintiffs and halted litigation for up to three years. The DNR and the two local communities who intervened, provided legislative support for a two phased option identified in the Met Council's June 2014 Draft Water Feasibility Report to move thirteen communities from groundwater and to surface water from the Mississippi River for their public water supply. The first phase of the project (Phase 1) would move six communities, including Mahtomedi and a portion of White Bear Lake, for Washington County, to a surface water supply system. An update from the plaintiffs, defendant, and interveners was provided to Judge Margaret Marrinan on September 8, 2016. A legislative proposal to fully fund the feasibility and design of Phase I was not approved by the August 1, 2016 settlement deadline. This lifted the three year stay in the lawsuit and a March 6, 2017 trial date has been scheduled. Support and Opposition: Four of the six "Phase I" communities, and several of the "Phase 11" communities are opposed to shifting their communities from groundwater to surface water. Previous Consideration: The County Board first supported this platform in 2015. No Action: Need to be determined. Financial Implications: Need to be determined. Contact Person: Lowell Johnson, Director Washington County Public Health and Environment 651-430-6725 Lowell.Johnson@co.washington.mn.us 27 COUNTY COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT Position: Washington County supports legislation that would allow, but not require, the county board to appoint an interim county commissioner to serve until a special election can be held and a replacement elected. Issue: Under current law, when a vacancy occurs on the county board and there is more than one year remaining on the unexpired term the county board must call for a special election and may not appoint an interim commissioner. The statutory restrictions in scheduling a special election create the possibility for vacancies on the county board of up to ten months in length. These vacancies leave large populations unrepresented and place additional burdens on the remaining commissioners. This legislative change would allow a county board to appoint an individual to serve as commissioner between the period when the vacancy is declared and when an individual is elected at a special election to fill the unexpired term. If only a short time exists between when the vacancy is created and the special election, the county board would be unlikely to appoint a replacement. However, if a longer time period exists, the county board may determine that representation of those county residents would be best served by appointing an interim commissioner until a successor could be elected. Support and Opposition: Because this law change would not change the requirements to hold a special election and it is in rare cases where this appointment option would be utilized, little to no opposition would be anticipated. Support may come from other counties that have operated at fewer than the normal number of elected officials because of a vacancy prior to the election of a successor. Previous Consideration: The County Board has not previously considered this legislation. No Action: If no action is taken unfilled vacancies will leave a portion of the county population unrepresented and unreasonably burden existing commissioners. Financial Implications: Opportunities for county attendance at various boards and committees may be missed leaving the county unrepresented in decisions of financial and operational importance to our residents. Contact Persons: Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator Office of Administration 651-430-6003 Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us Jennifer Wagenius, Director Property Records and Taxpayer Services 651-430-6182 Jennifer.Wagenius@co.washington.mn.us 28 IN-PERSON ABSENTEE VOTING PROCEDURES Position: Washington County supports legislation that will allow an in-person absentee voter to place their ballot directly into the ballot tabulator during the entire 46 -day absentee voting period. Issue: During the 2016 legislative session provisions that allow early in-person voters to place their ballots directly into the ballot tabulator during the seven days before the election were authorized. This legislation substantially improves the voter experience and reduces administrative burden however it creates a disparity between in-person absentee voters. Voters casting their ballot in-person during the first 39 days of the absentee voting period are required to use the more time consuming and expensive mail absentee ballot process which requires a minimum of two envelopes, and an extensive manual process, that does not notify the voter of an error on their ballot. Voters using this process have expressed unease about having their ballot envelopes placed in a locked ballot box. In-person absentee voters who vote during the last seven days before the election are allowed to place their ballots directly into the ballot tabulator. Voters using the certified tabulator receive system validation that their ballot was accepted without error or receive a message identifying errors and allowing the voter to mark a replacement ballot. Support and Opposition: Opposition and support for changes to in-person absentee voting at the legislature has been mixed and historically delineated by political party but that may be changing. Both major political parties actively promoted absentee voting during the 2016 election. Support for expansion of the in-person absentee ballot tabulator process will come from the Minnesota Association of County Officers, Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State, and various voting rights groups, though not all may agree on the length of time to allow this alternative procedure. Previous Consideration: The County Board actively supported the 2016 legislation allowing in-person voters to place their ballots directly into the ballot tabulator during the seven days before the election. No Action: If no action is taken the in-person absentee voters will suffer disparate voter experiences, voter concerns will not be addressed, and the administrative costs for absentee voting will continue to expand as the popularity of absentee voting increases. Financial Implications: Allowing in-person absentee voters to place their ballots directly into the ballot counter rather than using the supplies and procedures required for mail voting reduces costs per transaction over 50%, improves service, and notifies the voter of an error thereby allowing them to obtain a replacement ballot and have their vote counted. Contact Person: Jennifer Wagenius, Director Property Records and Taxpayer Services 651-430-6182 Jennifer.wagenius@co.washington.mn.us 29 SUPPORT INCREASED FUNDING FOR AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES COUNTY AID Position: Washington County supports an increase in the state funding provided to counties to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. Issue: In 2014, the Legislature approved the creation of a new county aid program to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in our state's lakes, rivers, and streams. Annually $10 million is appropriated and split amongst the 87 counties based on a formula that takes into account the number of public water accesses and watercraft trailer parking spaces in each county. Washington County has developed a competitive grant program to select projects to fund from its share of the aid program. Projects funded include public awareness and planning activities, watercraft inspections, and the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and flowering rush in a number of county lakes. The county has required third -party monitoring of the control activities, and required all grantees to submit detailed result reports in order to track the effectiveness and efficiency of the projects funded. The county has partnered with the Washington Conservation District, local watershed districts, and many local lake associations to carry out projects funded through the county aid program. The county funding provided to the watershed districts and lake associations has grown in importance because of the reduction in funding for these efforts by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Support and Opposition: Support is likely to come from other Minnesota counties, the Washington Conservation District, watershed districts, and local lake associations. Previous Consideration: In April of 2016, the County Board sent a letter to the county's legislative delegation thanking them for providing the county aid to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species and recommending additional funding in future years. No Action: The county will continue to provide grants to local partners to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species, but as the number of both public water accesses and watercraft trailer parking spaces continue to increase statewide, Washington County's share of the $10 million in aid will likely decrease. Financial Implications: In 2014, the first year of the program the county received $62,811 of the total $5 million available statewide. Beginning in 2015, the statewide total increased to $10 million per year and the county share in 2015 and 2016 was just more than $139,000 and the amount certified to be received in 2017 is just more than $132,000. Contact Persons: Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator Office of Administration 651-430-6003 Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us 30 Colin Kelly, AICP Senior Planner — Office of Administration 651-430-6011 Colin.Kelly@co.washington.mn.us LOCAL WETLAND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Position: Washington County is requesting $5 million of cash to be appropriated to the Board of Water and Soil Resources to allow the purchase of wetland credits from private wetland banks to meet immediate Local Road Wetland Replacement Program obligations. Washington County is requesting $10 million in bonding authorization to BWSR to "recapitalize" its wetlands banks to provide future replacement credits. Due to federal requirements, new, functioning wetlands that generate the necessary wetland replacement credits take several years to create. Issue: The Local Road Wetland Replacement Program (LRWRP) has been an integral part of the "no net loss" policy under the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) since 1996. Under the WCA, the reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing county, city and township roads to meet state or federal design or safety standards are exempt from wetland replacement requirements as long as wetland impacts are minimized. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) is required to replace the wetlands lost as the result of the eligible local road reconstruction or rehabilitation. BWSR's obligation to replace the wetlands lost due to the eligible local road projects has been historically funded with the proceeds of GO bonds authorized in the biennial capital budget bills. Since 2010, the state has not been meeting the funding obligation as requested by BWSR. Year BWSR Capital Budget Request Governor's Recommendation Appropriation 2010 $8,420,000 $4,200,000 $2,500,000 2012 $13,100,000 $0 $6,000,000 2014 $5,400,000 $0 $2,000,000 2016 $10,330,000 $5,000,000 $0 As a result of the underfunding, BWSR has provided notice that it will not provide wetland replacement for LRWRP eligible projects in Washington County. By next summer, eligible local road projects in most of the state will be effected. Ultimately, eligible local road projects throughout the entire state will be delayed or shutdown. This is a statewide problem. Local governments have not budgeted to step in to meet the state's legal obligation to replace the lost wetlands and cannot legally increase 2017 property taxes to facilitate that even if they wanted to do so. The Legislature needs to act immediately to meet the state's legal obligation to fund the replacement of the affected wetlands and not make the already existing funding gaps for Minnesota local governments' transportation infrastructure even worse. Support and Opposition: 31 Support has come from the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), Minnesota Inter -County Association (MICA). No major opposition is expected as this program, when functioning, is considered one of the best examples of government streamlining in the State. Previous Consideration: None No Action: Currently, Washington County does not have access to wetland replacement credits through BWSR. The inability to obtain credits will delay local road projects, and will increase costs for the delivery of our capital improvement program. Financial Implications: Wetland replacement credits are available on the private market for $60,000 to $80,000 per acre. Project delays are expected due to lack of BWSR credits. Delays increase project costs. Contact Person: Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer & Deputy Public Works Director Washington County Public Works 651-430-4339 Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us 32 SUGGESTED MANDATES FOR CONSIDERATION OF REPEAL OR REFORM Mandate Statute Comments Public Safety/Corrections Eliminate 484.77 Allowing counties to charge a rental fee to cover the cost of building, maintaining, Responsibility for operating, remodeling, insuring, and renovating facilities occupied by the court County to would provide for accountability and transparency in government costs and Provide Rent operations. Approximately $1,806,900 per year. Free Space to State Courts State Court 484.52 The County Sheriff is required to provide state court security. Approximately Security $1,242,800 per year. Eliminate State 480.181 The 1999 Legislature approved the transfer of responsibility for funding most, but Court Costs Paid 480.1811 not all, trial court operations. Approximately $365,000 per year. by Counties 480.182 Eliminate Shift 206C.331 Since the 1994 Public Defender takeover by the State of Minnesota, the courts of Public Subd. 3(d) have regularly appointed public defenders to represent indigent parents in Defender Costs Children in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) and Termination of Parental for Representing 260C.163 Rights (TPR) cases. Beginning in 2008, the state public defenders no longer Parents in Subd. 3(b) accepted these cases, and when counsel was ordered by the court the costs were CHIPS/TPR. billed to the county. In 2012 legislation was passed that codifies recent Supreme Court rulings requiring counties to pay for the representation of adults in CHIPS/TPR proceedings, if they are unable to financially provide for their own counsel. The legislation did provide more authority for the county to develop contracts with attorneys to provide these services. Options are being developed to control county costs, but the costs would be more appropriately funded by the state through the public defender's office. Approximately $75,000 per year. Eliminate State 611.21 Public defender's offices can secure court orders to direct payments by counties Court Authority for services other than counsel. This is not an expenditure the county has any to Direct ability to control or estimate for budgeting purposes. Approximately $2,000 per Payment by the year. County for Services Other than Counsel for Indigent Defendants Subtotal: $3,491,700 Human Services Mental Health 245.4835 This was imposed by the Legislature out of concern that since the state was Maintenance of shifting money from counties to health plans, counties would begin reducing their Effort (MOE) investment in mental health. Approximately $5,370,700 per year of which $3,750,700 is county responsibility. 33 Mandate Statute Comments Human Services (continued) Commitment 246.54 Eliminate the county share for commitment treatment costs. Treatment Costs 0-75% for individuals committed to State Operated Services facilities for treatment of mental illness. Share is dependent on the length of stay. During the 2013 legislative session, the county share of costs on stays over 30 days increased from 50% to 75%. The county share for individuals committed to MN Security Hospital also increased from 10% to 50%. Total cost of these areas is approximately $389,200 per year. 10% for individuals committed prior to 8/1/2011 to State Operated Services facilities for sex offender treatment. 25% for sex offender commitments occurring after 8/1/2011. Approximately $158,000 per year. County Share 25613.19 Currently, the state requires counties to pay the indicated portion of the for Medical nonfederal share of medical assistance costs for stays in excess of 90 days in the Assistance Costs following situations: for Under 65, Disabled Person 10% for individuals placed in Intermediate Care Facilities (ICF) for the Mentally Placed in Retarded (MR) of seven beds or more. Approximately $65,000 per year. Nursing Homes More than 90 10% for disabled individuals under age 65 placed in nursing homes. Days, and for Approximately $185,000 per year. Certain ICF/MR Placements The state reneged on its commitment to pay all those costs when counties surrendered homestead and agricultural credit aid on a dollar -for -dollar basis for the state takeover of all income maintenance programs in the early 1990s. These cuts in state funding, enacted in 2003, should be restored. Detoxification 256G.06 Eliminate the requirement that the county be responsible for detoxification Costs services. Approximately $128,000 levy per year. Reform Chapter We are not asking for repeal of this statute, but requesting reform of the Requirement 260C.451. requirement. It has been assumed by the state that local funds will provide that Counties Subd. 1 funding for this new requirement, along with any available federal funds. Our Provide Child (Effective request is that state funds need to be allocated to counties to fully fund the costs, Foster Care and August 1, minus any federal funds, of this recently enacted state (and federal requirement). Transition 2010) Services for It is roughly estimated that this cost to Washington County will be approximately Youth in Child (DHS $100,000 annually. The total amount of dollars needed is dependent on the Foster Care from Bulletin utilization of this out -of -home care for this age group, transition services needed age 18-21 #10-68-12, by the older youth, etc. Sept. 3, 2010) 34 Mandate Statute Comments Human Services (continued) County Match 1196.11, Eliminate or equalize the required county match for the Basic Sliding Fee (BSF) and Maintenance Subd. 1 childcare program, which is currently equal to the calendar year 1996 required of Effort and 4 contribution. The average statewide local match for BSF childcare is 3%, but Requirements for some counties pay as much as 15%. Approximately $40,000 per year. Child Care Assistance Commitment 256G.08 Eliminate the county share for sex offender hold costs. Hold Costs for Sex Offenders 100% cost for holding sex offenders at State Operated Services facilities or jail facilities, whichever the offender chooses to be held. Approximately $25,000 per year. Random Drug 256.01, In 2012 the Minnesota Legislature passed a law requiring the random drug testing Testing of Subd. 18c of convicted drug felons who are receiving General Assistance (GA), Minnesota Convicted Felons Supplemental Aid (MSA), Diversionary Work Program (DWP), Minnesota Family Investment Plan (MFIP) or Work Participation Benefits (WB). Counties are charged with this responsibility. No reimbursement for counties was included in the legislation. The number of county participants receiving cash assistance benefits and subject to random drug testing is negligible and the actual test costs are approximately $500 a year. The operational costs of handling appeals and legal challenges have yet to be quantified. Subtotal: $4,841,400 Human Resources/Employee Benefits Either Eliminate 299A.465 Employers are required to pay the employer share of disabled peace officers' and or Totally State- their dependents' health insurance until the peace officer reaches age 65, even if Fund Continued the officer gains other employment and health insurance coverage. Since this Health Insurance benefit was created in the late 1990s, there has been a surge in disability for retirements. In part, because of this, both employer and employee contribution Disabled Peace rates to the PERA Police and Fire pension plan have increased. When this benefit Officers was originally enacted, it was predicated on the state paying 100% of its costs. The state has not kept its part of that bargain for several years. If the state cannot meet that obligation, the mandated payment by the employer should be eliminated. Approximately $10,000 per year. Subtotal: $10,000 35 Mandate 11 Statute Comments Financial/Administrative Concerns No -excuse 20313.02 No -excuse absentee voting is projected to increase absentee voting by 50% and, absentee despite equipment improvements, is expected to increase election administrative balloting expenses by more than $50,000. Minutes, 375.12, Allowing web publication in lieu of newspaper publication of County Board Financial 375.17, minutes, county financial statements, summary budgets, and delinquent property Statement, 375.169, & tax notices, etc. would save money for county taxpayers, while preserving or even Budget 279.09, enhancing public access to this information. Approximately $15,800 per year. Publication, and etc. Delinquent Tax Notices, etc. Eliminate Budget 357.18, Each of the county elected officials has statutory authority to appeal its budgets. Appeals and Subd. 4; These appeals generally occur after the county levy has been set and require both Independent 384.151; the elected official and the county to hire outside counsel. The County Board is Spending 385.373; responsible for establishing the county's overall budget and tax levy. The Board's Authority by 386.015; accountability to taxpayers demands that it, and it alone, have full control over County Elected 387.20; county spending decisions. Officials Other 388.18 than the Board of Commissioners Eliminate Library 134.34 Eliminate the requirement that a county must participate in the regional library Maintenance of system, and levy for library operations an amount equal to the second or third Effort (MOE) prior year's level of support, unless adjusted net tax capacity decreases. Counties need the ability to respond to changing priorities and needs. When one area of the budget is off limits to reductions, other programs or services and their recipients unfairly bear a disproportionately greater share of any cutbacks when they occur. OR Amend the requirement that a county must budget for library operations in an amount equal to the second or third prior year's level of support to provide that the requirement does not apply to a county if its county library meets state standards for public library service to be established by the Minnesota Department of Education, State Library Services Division. Therefore, the public and elected officials will know that their funding is purchasing a quality service. Subtotal: $65,800 GRAND TOTAL: $8,408,900 36