HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.01.23 CC Packet - Goal Setting SessionCITY OF
14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North • Hugo, MN 55038
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Overview
• Highlights of 2018
• 2019 Objectives
4. Updates from Commissions
• Planning Commission
• Parks Commission
• EDA
• Historical Commission
5. Selection of 2019 City Goals
6. Direction to Staff
7. Adj ournment
AGENDA
HUGO CITY COUNCIL
GOAL SETTING SESSION
HUGO CITY HALL
TUESDAY. JANUARY 23.2019 — 5 P.M.
CITY OF HUGO
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bryan Bear, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2019 Goals
DATE: January 17, 2019 for the City Council workshop of January 22, 2019
BACKGROUND:
Attached to this memo is a copy of the 2018 Goals approved by the City Council last year, as
well as the 2019 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 2019. 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.
Infrastructure:
Pavement management program. In 2016, the city re-evaluated the streets CIP
program. Council decided to accelerate the program by dedicating additional funds. In 2017,
with a recommendation from the Public Works Director, the council discontinued the city's
sealcoating program, and reallocated the previously dedicated levy to the streets CIP for mill and
overlay projects. For 2019, staff anticipates updating the streets CIP by incorporating the new
mill and overlay program.
The reconstruction project for 2019 will be 130th street from Hwy 61 to Goodview. Later this
year, staff will provide the council with updates on the condition of city streets and long term
maintenance costs (including mill and overlay) and will ask council to consider approving
another street reconstruction project for 2020.
Gravel Roads. In 2018, staff completed extensive testing of roughly 5 miles of poorly
performing gravel roads and developed a series of recommended actions. Following a workshop
with the City Council last spring, the City completed improvements to Ingersoll Ave as a test
road project last summer. The Public Works staff will continue to evaluate the test project
through this spring. Following completion of the test, and assuming results continue to be
positive, staff anticipates completing improvements on the remaining sections of poorly
performing gravel roadways in 2019.
Construction projects in 2019 will focus primarily on new public roads and utilities to
be constructed concurrent with private development. Work on 130th Street with a roundabout at
Flay Ave will result in inconveniences to some residents. Continuing work on 35E near Forest
Lake will result in added traffic on Hwy 61 this summer. Work on the Hugo Short Line Railroad
will be completed in the spring. Discussion on a collaborative effort with Lino Lakes in
underway concerning paving of Elmcrest Avenue in Southern Hugo and Cedar Street in Lino
Lakes. Upgrades to sewer and water systems are anticipated in 2019 near city wells and lift
stations. Park and trail improvements will be constructed in Adelaide Landing.
South Water Tower. Vegetative clearing has begun to make way for construction of the
new water tower on 125th street to replace the existing tower on 130th Street. Discussion will
occur concerning the fate of the old tower on 130th street, which will no longer be needed to
support the City's water supply system
Bridges. City consulting staff has completed inspections of several city bridges that will
need maintenance work. Staff will propose inclusion of bridge maintenance activities into the
CIP.
Water:
White Bear Lake Lawsuit. This issue consumed significant time in 2018, as Judge
Marrinan's ruling has significant impacts on the City. Fortunately, most impacts of the ruling
have now been delayed until June of 2019. In late January, the Court of Appeals will hear oral
arguments on the appeal, with their ruling expecting in early spring. Depending on the result,
there could be significant time spent on this issue again in 2019.
Stormwater re -use. New water re -use projects will be operational this year in Adelaide
Landing and Oneka Place. Staff is working on phase 2 of the Waters Edge re -use project. Staff
continues to seek outside funds for the CSAH 8 project.
Water Conservation. Many of the measures the city has implemented for water
conservation may no longer be relevant as a result of the court ruling. These programs will need
to be re-evaluated before they are continued. Council has approved a new water rate structure
that is now being implemented. The Met Council is completing a report for Hugo, evaluating the
benefit of smart -irrigation controllers.
Regional water studies that impact Hugo continue to be developed and updated. Staff
reviews this data, participates on many task forces and committees and is involved in regional
discussions involving water use. Phil Klein remains as a member of MAWSAC.
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 daytime staffing levels.
CIP. The Fire Chief s recommendations have resulted in the planned replacement of the
1991 pumper/tanker truck with a ladder truck. Staff anticipates taking delivery of the new truck
before the end of February. Other equipment needs will be evaluated by the Department.
Continue Leadership Development Program, and Leadership Succession Plan. This
program has been created by the Fire Chief and allows educational and training opportunities for
HFD staff. We are aware of the Chiefs desire to retire, once he completes 20 years of service
(near the end of 2020). Staff would like to ensure for a smooth transition in this key leadership
role.
Continue Grant Application System. The Fire Department has increased their
participation in grant programs recently. It is a time intensive process to write grant applications,
but it has had recent success. In 2018, The Department received grant dollars for replacement of
the SCBA bottles. When successful, grants for the fire services can be substantial. HFD staff
expects to continue a focus in this area in 2019.
Parks:
Recreation programs. The city is continuing to strengthen partnerships regarding
programming for our residents. The staff is continuing work to add new programming for 2019
in collaboration with the Forest Lake YMCA. A task force created by the White Bear School
District to assess the needs of seniors was finished in 2017 and is now being implemented. Some
of the larger events created by city staff are now being run by some degree through our
partnerships, which creates an ability for staff to consider additional programming opportunities.
Trails. The Parks Commission focused last year on creating a master plan for trail
connections within Clearwater Creek Preserve. We expect to work with Washington County on
planning for a southerly extension of the Hardwood Creek Trail. Many important trail
connections are being addressed through our partnerships with the development community.
Water Access. The Parks Plan encourages a focus on improving access to the City's
water amenities. Land is being dedicated along Sunset Lake this year, providing an additional
public access possibility.
Irish Avenue Park. The Parks Commission has added to goal to evaluate vegetative
management within Irish Ave Park. Ultimately, a timeline, vision, and plan for Irish Ave Park
will be created.
Lions Park. The Parks Commission desires to implement the Lions Park master plan
according to a phased schedule that could begin in 2020. The Commission still needs to identify
revenue sources and next steps for redevelopment of this park.
Clearwater Creek Preserve. The Parks Commission approved a master plan for this
park in 2018, including millions of dollars of improvements.
Long-term Parks Funding. While not specifically on the Parks Commission's list of
goals, it is obvious that funding for improvements to the community parks listed above will not
likely occur without a new funding source. Council may wish to discuss possible funding
solutions in 2019.
Administration and Planning:
Downtown Hugo. Staff anticipates continuing to spend time in 2019 meeting with
people who are interested in development within downtown. Last fall, the City signed a
purchase agreement for development of a restaurant on city -owned land. With that agreement
expiring soon, the city may need to pursue alternatives. The Council and Planning Commission
have 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 Building Department continues to
provide full time building permit and inspection services for the City of Scandia, and part time
for other cities. The City is working with Washington County to transfer operation of the city's
compost site to the county, and expand operations to accept brush.
Development. Staff is closely monitoring the pace of development activity which has
been increasing recently. Some ongoing development projects include Adelaide Landing, Oneka
Place, Victor Gardens North Village, Clearwater Cove, Schwieters, Creekside Heights, Fable
Hills, Waters Edge, Norman Woods, and others. There is significant interest in vacant,
undeveloped land parcels as well.
Facilities. The Public Works Director has been scheduling meetings with firms to help
evaluate possible expansion needs at Public Works. Staff may be prepared to discuss options
with the Council in 2019. Modifications to Public Works will involve further discussions with
the Sheriff's office. A new roof and HVAC mechanical equipment was installed at the Fire Hall
in 2018. Staff is also discussing maintenance and minor upgrades that are needed at City Hall.
White Bear Lake School Facilities. The school district is evaluating their own facility
needs in response to growth within the district, especially growth occurring in Hugo. There has
been significant discussion between While Bear Lake School Administration and Hugo staff
about the need for additional school buildings. We expect this discussion to advance towards a
specific proposal in 2019.
Technology. The staff continues implementation of a document imaging system. Much
of this conversion to electronic files has been complete, which is improving the way that service
is delivered. Staff has also been working on the implementation of a new permitting software
that will allow for electronic submittals of permits and plans. When complete, much of the
transactional business that must now occur at the front counter, will occur on-line instead. New
equipment should be considered for installation within the Council Chambers and Oneka Room.
Council may wish to discuss electronic packets, including city -issued tablets.
Comprehensive Plan / Ordinances. This significant effort was largely completed in
2018. The official submittal will occur in early 2019 with implementation to follow.
Implementation normally starts with an evaluation of city ordinances. There has been some
interest in re-evaluating the City's solar ordinance following the application for a solar farm last
year. The City needs to create an ordinance to regulate "small -cell" communication structures as
a result of recent changes to state laws.
The Historical Commission hired an intern in 2018 who has collected information about
the Hopkins Schoolhouse. A Committee has been established that will present recommendations
in February concerning the future of the Schoolhouse. The intern has established a social media
presence for the Commission and has made significant progress in cataloging the city's history.
Much of this historical information is being made more available to the public and is being
organized in a searchable format. The Commission would also like to add additional members to
the Commission, continue to improve their social media presence, maintain the display case, and
host open houses.
The Beautification Subcommittee has been established and has been making
recommendations on entry signs, landscaping, monuments, and other items to improve the city's
appearance. This year, a new monument sign at the city's north entrance is anticipated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends council use the information provided to discuss and prepare a list of goals for
2019.
� CITY CtF
rs
2018 City Council Focus Goals
•Design and build stormwater reuse/management projects and seek grant funds
•Promote water conservation practices through education and incentives
•Evaluate recent changes to water rate structure
•Be a leader in regional activities related to water supply
•Evaluate impact of WBL lawuit on conservation practices
•Focus on marketing the City -owned property and city-wide promotion
•Assist existing businesses with expansion plans and help new businesses build
•Work with Washington County on economic development activities
•Approve update of City Comprehensive Plan
•Prepare needed updates to zoning ordinances
•Prepare design and cost information for City gateway elements and entrance
signs
•Implement new permit management software
•Reconstuct Oneka Lake Blvd and Harrow Ave
•Prepare 5-year maintenace plan for JD2
•Conduct space needs study for city buildings
•Evaluate maintenance practices of City's gravel roadways
•Approve construction timeline and prepare plans for new south water tower
•Complete revisions to Parks Plan
•Evaluate possible trail connections
•Focus on improving water access to residents where possible
•Expand recreational programming focus to all residents
•Create plans for Clearwater Creek Preserve and Irish Ave Park
•Conduct regular evaluations of emergency services
•Review future options for a ladder truck
•Target recruitment efforts toward daytime firefighters
•Collaborate with surrounding cities to improve operations and consider automatic
mutal aid
•Continue to implement security recommendations at City buildings
•Continue document imaging of City files
•Consider restoration possibilities of the Hopkins Schoolhouse
•Improve technology and communcation methods to better serve our residents
LO
OF
k•51 k�pl
2018 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
2019 Goals
Planning Commission
Approved by the Planning Commission at its Thursday, January 10, 2019, meeting
rjL
r�L
• Schedule regular Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
meetings
• Evaluate and revise the shoreland, small cells, subdivision,
and PUD sections of the City Code
• Schedule Planning Commission meeting procedures and
land use training
• Overview of existing conditions and future improvements to
Highway 61
• Recap of design guildelines
2019 Goals
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission
Approved by the Parks Commission at their December 19, 2018 meeting
•Address trail and greenway connectivity with new developments.
• Plan greenway corridors.
• Look for opportunities to fill the gaps in the trail network.
• Provide for the recreation needs of our diverse population.
• Strengthen and build partnerships to efficiently provide recreation options.
• Evaluate existing recreation programs and ammenities and explore new options with a
focus on water access.
• Evaluate vegetation management for Irish Avenue Park and Clearwater Creek Preserve.
•Expand parking and access at Irish Avenue Park and Clearwater Creek Preserve.
•Continually inspect existing parks to maintain a list of assests and their condition.
• Enhance and maintain existing trails and parks.
• Review and finalize the feasibility study.
• Engage with the City Council and community to look at next steps.
•Actively utilize the Comprehensive Plan as a planning tool.
• Respond to resident input.
• Review development applications with respect to the Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Plan
2019 Goals
Economic Development Authority (EDA)
• 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
• Continue low development costs
• Continue business visits
• Review resource lists for business
• 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
•Attend Technology Corridor 035E) meetings
• Review and implement the work plan
• 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
Approved by the EDA at its Tuesday, January 15, 2019, meeting
Historical Commission Goals:
• Add new members
• Improve our social media presence through Facebook, PastPerfect, and the city website
• Hold open house events twice a year for the public (next one in March)
• Continue with organizing collections, acquiring oral interviews, and changing the display case
information regularly
• Follow the Hopkins School meetings and assist when requested
• Join professional organizations, attend county networking meetings
• Investigate Lyfmap, a new software, for sharing Hugo history
• Convert documents/maps (especially larger ones) to pdf files for sharing on the city website
lWinnesila
Washington County
Legislative Agenda — 2019
This document represents Washington County's State Legislative interests for the year 2019. 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 ..................................... 3
Washington County Contact Information .................................................. 5
Washington County 2019 Priority Legislative Positions
Hwy 36 & Manning Interchange Project ...................................................... 7
Local Property Taxpayer Protection.......................................................... 9
License Center Service Fees............................................................... 13
Assistive Voting Technology............................................................... 15
Washington County 2019 Legislative Positions
4t"Street Bridge Project..................................................................17
Bus Route 363 Demonstration Project ...................................................... 19
Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax Revenue ..................................................... 21
Planning and Construction of 1-94/494/694 System Interchange Improvements .................... 23
State Funding for Safety Net Services....................................................... 25
County Commissioner Appointment........................................................ 27
2019 General County Positions
Community Corrections Act Subsidy Funding ................................................. 29
Funding for Basic Mental Health Services .................................................... 31
State Funding for Libraries................................................................33
Early Voting Election Modernization........................................................ 35
Regional Parks Operation and Maintenance Reimbursement .................................... 37
Parks and Trails Legacy Fund Allocation Formula .............................................. 39
Local Wetland Replacement Program....................................................... 41
Repeal of Health Care Access Fund Provider Tax Sunset ........................................ 43
Expanding Regional Transit Capital Area ..................................................... 45
Permanent Funding for School Building Bond Agricultural Property Tax Credit ..................... 47
Appendices
Suggested Mandates for Consideration of Repeal or Reform
Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) Legislative Platform
Minnesota Inter -County Association (MICA) Legislative Platform
Partnership on Waste and Energy
washington
:-_-County
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.
9
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 Wayne Johnson 651-430-6214
E-mail: wayne.a.johnson@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.o'rourke@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
Margaret Vesel, Legislative Representative
Larkin Hoffman
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN S5437-1060
E-mail: mvesel@larkinhoffman.com
952-896-3371
TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 15 (MANNING AVENUE)
INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Position:
Washington County supports the appropriation of $15 million in state funds, to match existing federal
and local funds, for the Trunk Highway 36 and County State Aid Highway 15 (Manning Avenue)
Interchange Project.
Issue:
Washington County is leading the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15
(Manning Avenue) Interchange Project, in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), the Cities of Stillwater, Grant, Lake Elmo, and Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater Township. The
project location is the existing at -grade signalized intersection of TH 36 and Manning Avenue. As
Washington County has grown, traffic volumes have increased to the point where traffic demand is
exceeding the capacity of the intersection, resulting in safety concerns, extended periods of heavy
congestion, and an unacceptable level of peak hour service. The intersection's capacity constraints have
contributed to the growing safety issue. Between 2011 and 2015, this intersection had 56 reported
crashes with one fatality. Additionally, this intersection ranked 75 out of 8,000 intersections based on a
statewide crash cost comparison. The 2017 opening of the St. Croix Crossing Bridge improved access to
Washington County, the Twin Cities Metro Area and Western Wisconsin but the increased traffic volumes
following the opening are exacerbating the existing safety and capacity issues at the intersection.
The project preserves existing capacity along TH 36 by constructing an interchange at the existing
signalized intersection and, adding a frontage road south of TH 36. This project eliminates an at -grade
intersection along TH 36, and helps achieve the freeway vision of this important interregional corridor.
Support and Opposition:
MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council, the Cities of Lake Elmo, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and the townships
of Grant and Stillwater support improving efficiency, mobility and safety at the intersection of TH 36 and
Manning Avenue.
Previous Consideration:
Washington County submitted a request for funds in the 2018 legislative session. This request was
not funded.
No Action:
If the proposal is not enacted the critical efficiency, mobility and safety issues associated with the TH 36
and Manning Avenue intersection will continue to grow. Without a grade -separated interchange traffic
delays will become intolerable and traffic trying to access Manning with spill onto TH 36, risking the safety
of all who pass through this area. The addition of the St. Croix Crossing Bridge has already and will continue
to exacerbate these issues as the corridor develops into a regional gateway. If state funding is not provided
there is a risk of losing the federal dollars that have been granted for this project.
rN
Financial Implications:
The total cost of the TH 36 and Manning Avenue Interchange and Project is estimated to be $30
million. It is expected that local agencies will provide $3 million, federal grants will provide $7 million,
$5 million will come from Washington County's allocation of state highway aid, and the remaining $15
million from state funds.
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer, Deputy Director of Public Works
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
wayne.sandberg@co.washington.mn.us
LOCAL PROPERTY TAXPAYER PROTECTION
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 of 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 mandated
programs on their behalf. Roughly 75 percent of all operating and capital costs in the annual county
budget are to pay for mandated services. Counties have identified potential reforms, repeals, or changes
that could reduce costs significantly. 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 unsustainable burden on local property taxpayers and inhibits the
county's ability to provide high quality, essential services.
In 2019, the county has budgeted to spend more than $200 million on services that are required by state
or federal law, rule or regulation. Of the county's total property tax levy, 74 percent goes to pay for these
mandated service costs.
County Program Aid (CPA) is provided by the state to help fund state mandated services. While the county
received a modest increase in 2018, that amount was less than just the increased costs for five mandated
programs, including child protection, out of home placement costs, and MnChoices assessments. In 2019,
the county will see a reduction in state aid of roughly $77,000, and we anticipate an even larger reduction
in 2020 if new state funds are not provided for county program aid in the 2019 legislative session.
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. However, inadequate state resources threaten our ability to continue
providing the core functions of county government at a reasonable cost to county 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.
A 2017 law change now requires counties to pay 15 percent of the cost of state required assessments and
reassessment for the elderly and individuals with developmental disabilities. Law changes in 2015 and
2016 have dramatically increased county costs related to child protection services and the subsequent
placement of children outside of the home. In addition, recent law changes require a greater county share
for costs at the Minnesota Security Hospital in St. Peter, at Community Behavioral Health Homes (CBHH),
and at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.
9
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, let alone respond to increasing
demands on our core services during a period of increasing population and changing demographics, and
the corresponding pressure for citizen and safety net services.
The state often passes on costs to the counties in order to balance its own budget. The state currently
enjoys a substantial surplus for the 2020-2021 biennia. The cost shares passed onto counties has improved
the state's fiscal position but has come at a cost to local property taxpayers. A portion of the state surplus
should be dedicated to undoing the recent cost shifts that have increased local property taxes.
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.
Financial Implications:
County levy increases are likelyto be largerthan otherwise necessary if the state and federal governments
would fully fund the costs of mandated services.
Contact Persons:
Molly O'Rourke, Administrator Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator
Washington County Office of Administration Washington County Office of Administration
651-430-6002 651-430-6003
molly.o'rourke@co.washington.mn.us kevin.corbid@co.washington.mn.us
10
Washington County is both an administra-
tive agency of the state providing mandat-
ed services, and a local government. The
county only has the power and authority
given to it by the state legislature. Wash-
ington County provides an array of ser-
vices, including health and human ser-
vices, road construction and maintenance,
public safety and probation, election ad-
ministration, water quality, parks, libraries,
solid waste management, prosecution,
property valuation and taxation, and re-
cording public property records.
County programs are funded through a
combination of state and federal aid, local
property taxes, a local sales tax, and fees
for services. As the cost of providing man-
dated services increases, if state and fed-
eral funding does not increase proportion-
ally, the pressure on the local property tax
increases.
In 2019, the county anticipates spending
more than $200 million on services that are
required by the state or federal government
to provide.
Below is an example of various mandated
services and percentage of costs funded
through the county's property tax levy.
Source: 2019 Inventory of Mandates and
County Core Functions report.
Jail Detention
$9,747,800
96%
Adult Probation
$4,963,800
59%
Sheriff Patrol
$4,671,000
93%
911
$3,596,400
90%
Communications
Out -of -Home
$3,206,800
73%
Placements
Adult
$2,897,700
97%
Prosecution
Juvenile
$1,577,100
100%
Prosecution and
Child Protection
Waste loton
00-muftft-00
'00muftftwoo
o���unty
FUNDING SAFETY NET SERVICES
In recent years, the state legislature has shifted costs for state mandated
safety net programs onto county governments. This shifting has allowed
the state to balance its budget, but has led to increasing property taxes at
the county level. Often these shifts are for costs that the county has little
or no ability to manage or control. Examples of recent costs shifts that
should be eliminated, and state funding provided include:
Minnesota Security Hospital —St. Peter
• 10% daily cost of care
• 50% Transitional Program care
Forensic Nursing Home —St. Peter
• 10% - 50% daily cost of care, depending on program
requirement eligibility
Community Behavioral Health Homes
• 100% daily cost of care, depending on medical criteria
for placement eligibility
Community Restoration
• 20% - 100% daily cost of care, depending on program
requirement eligibility
Minnesota Sex Offender Program
• 10% - 25% of daily care, depending on date individual
entered program
LICENSE CENTER COST INCREASES IMPACT
THE 2019 COUNTY BUDGET
Washington County's three license centers process more than 300,000
transactions each year and remit more than $37 million in fees to the
state. Recent changes to the state technology systems utilized in the
license centers have moved more of the work related to each transaction
to the license center staff and away from state employees within the divi-
sion of motor vehicles. However, the fee structure has not changed and
all of the increased costs are now being borne by county property taxes
to support this state function.
In the 2018 and 2019 county budgets, an additional 8 staff members
were approved, costing over $300,000 annually just to deal with the in-
creased work and to alleviate long wait times for customers.
The 2019 Legislature must approve an increase to the fees retained by
the counties, and other deputy registrars, if access to these state ser-
vices is to remain available throughout the State of Minnesota.
11
COUNTY TAX RATE REDUCED FOUR OF
THE LAST FIVE YEARS
The 2019 levy results in nearly a 1.5% change
(decrease) in the county property tax rate. The re-
duction in tax rate is a function of a rising tax base,
significant new construction value, and an increase in
the levy needed to pay for county services, much of
which are mandated. The 2019 reduction in tax rate
will be the fourth time over the last five years the
county has seen a reduction in the tax rate. In 2018,
Washington County had the second lowest tax rate
of all seven metropolitan counties, and its 2019 tax
rate is anticipated to remain the second lowest.
STRONG FINANCIAL HISTORY
Washington County has a history of strong financial
management and a low tax burden. The adopted
budget includes a 1.5% decrease in the county tax
rate and an annual net increase in county tax of jus
$35 on a median valued home ($273,200) in th
county for 2019. This reflects a median value in-
crease of 5.7% from 2018 to 2019. The median val
ued home in 2010 ($240,000) paid $674 per year i
county property tax; based on the 2019 budget, th
median valued home would pay $783, a $109 in-
crease over the last ten years. To further illustrate
the county's low tax burden, the chart to the left
shows a comparison of the total county tax paid on
the median valued home over ten years among the
seven metropolitan counties.
INCREASED PRESSURE ON THE COUNTY
PROPERTY TAX
The estimated costs to provide mandated services in
2019 is approximately $200.1 million. Increased ser-
vice demands, program changes, infrastructure up-
dates, and typical increases in personnel costs for
employees that provide these services all add to the
increasing pressure of providing mandated services.
Approximately 74% of the county's property tax is
allocated towards providing these state and federally
mandated services, up 2% since 2017.
Prepared by the Washington County Office of Administration, December 2018
LICENSE CENTER SERVICE FEES
Position:
Washington County supports legislation to increase the fees retained by deputy registrars for completing
license transactions. This business model, when adequately funded, allows the county to provide a wide
variety of deputy registrar services and ensures services are available throughout Minnesota.
Issue:
The 2017 implementation of the MN Licensing and Registration System (MNLARS) and the 2018
implementation of the new driver license system, Fast DS, with Enhanced and Real ID compliant driver
licenses increases the costs of license center operations by moving data entry from the state to the deputy
registrar offices, requiring additional background checks for employees, and increasing transaction time.
In addition to these major operational changes the county is required to provide approximately 18,000
no fee transactions per year for driver's license and motor vehicle services such as motor vehicle sticker
address changes, driver's license status updates, and disability certificates.
The deputy registrar portion of the license fee is set by statute and without legislative action it cannot be
increased to provide adequate funding for the staff time and other associated expenses deputy registrars
are incurring. Each year the license and service centers managed by Washington County complete
approximately 300,000 transactions on behalf of the state. In 2017, the county collected and sent over
$37 million to the State of Minnesota. In order to maintain these important services and a distributed
service model throughout the state, the fee for service must adequately cover costs. In 2018, the county
increased its costs by over $300,000 per year to add an additional eight service representatives to our
three license centers to handle the increased workload from the MNLARS implementation and to reduce
customer wait times.
Support and Opposition:
Support will come from the Minnesota Deputy Registrars Association, the Minnesota Association of
County Officers, the Association of Minnesota Counties and the Minnesota Inter -County Association.
There has been bipartisan support for reimbursing deputy registrar offices for excess costs incurred due
to recent system implementations.
Previous Consideration:
The County Board has a long history of prioritizing legislation that provides local taxpayer protection and
allows the county to deliver high quality core services. During the 2018 legislative session the County
Board actively supported legislation to correct the fee allocation and reimburse deputy registrar offices
for additional costs incurred due to the MNLARS implementation.
The legislature did consider deputy registrar fee increases for Real ID costs during the 2017 legislative
session but ultimately decided that any action was premature. A bill authorizing $9 million to reimburse
deputy registrars for costs related to the MNLARS implementation was overwhelmingly approved by both
the House and Senate during the 2018 session but ultimately vetoed by the Governor.
No Action:
If no action is taken the County Board will need to provide ongoing levy support for license services or
scale back or eliminate this service.
13
Financial Implications:
Increasing the fee for service retained by the service providers to a level that is adequate to offset wage,
benefit, facility, and supply costs will allow the county to continue to provide a wide variety of services
without property tax levy support. The cost for additional staff alone to help mitigate the negative
employee and customer service impacts of these system implementations is projected to exceed
$357,000 in 2019.
Contact Person:
Jennifer Wagenius, Director
Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services
651-430-6182
jennifer.wagenius@co.washington.mn.us
14
ASSISTIVE VOTING TECHNOLOGY
Position:
Washington County supports legislation that allows for alternative printed ballot styles to be used in the
voting process, specifically assistive voting technology that creates a marked paper ballot indicating the
voter's selection for each office by use of a touch screen or other electronic device.
Issue:
Assistive voting equipment allows all voters, regardless of their abilities, to vote privately and
autonomously. Currently, there are three assistive voting machines certified by the Office of the Secretary
of State for use in Minnesota. The most common, and the one currently used by Washington County for
assistive voting, is the Automark. The Automark is the only equipment compatible with the county's
existing election infrastructure. The Automark is no longer manufactured, and equipment in use is over
ten years old. Because of this aging technology, voters who use it are frustrated by the poor usability.
Washington County and other counties across the state are interested in upgrading their assistive voting
technology with new technology that is compatible with our existing election infrastructure. One such
advancement in this technology does not print a voter's selection on a pre-printed paper ballot. Instead,
a voter's preferences are printed on a large receipt detailing their selection that is then fed into the ballot
tabulator like every other ballot. This paper receipt is considered an alternative ballot style and current
Minnesota law does not allow anything but a traditional ballot to be used when voting.
The proposed technology provides complete and total independence to voters of all abilities; results in an
easier -to -use assistive voting system for the voter, the poll worker, and elections administrators; reduces
the expense of pre-printed ballots; eliminates unclear voter intention since the voter's completed ballot
will clearly identify the voter's intent; and expands options in voting technology to ensure the specific
needs of each county and its voters are met.
Support and Opposition:
Bills introduced that authorize these voting systems and the alternative printed ballots have had authors
from both political parties and support from the Washington County legislative delegation. This legislation
is supported by the Office of the Secretary of State, the Disability Advisory Committee to the Secretary's
Office, the National Federation for the Blind, the Minnesota Disability Law Center, many Minnesota
counties, and the Minnesota Association of County Officers.
An equipment vendor competing with the county's existing vendor for market share in Minnesota has
opposed this legislation in the past.
Previous Consideration:
Washington County actively supported this legislation in 2018. Legislation authorizing this equipment was
introduced during the 90`" Legislature (2017-2018) and included in the 2018 House Omnibus Election Bill.
No Omnibus Election Bill was passed in the Senate during the 2018 session.
No Action:
Absent legislative action Washington County and several other counties in the state would not have the
option to replace assistive voting equipment with updated technology compatible with their election
infrastructure.
15
Financial Implications:
Washington County was awarded state matching grant funds of $157,500 for the purchase of assistive
voting technology. Absent the approval of this legislation during the 2019 session Washington County will
not have an opportunity to use state grant funds to help offset the cost of this equipment to our property
taxpayers. Grant funds must be used by August 2019 or returned to the state for reallocation.
Contact Person:
Jennifer Wagenius, Director
Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services
651-430-6182
jennifer.wagenius@co.washington.mn.us
M.
PROPOSED 4TH STREET BRIDGE - OAKDALE
Position:
Washington County supports $4M of State funding for general purpose automobile -use lanes and
pedestrian and bicycle lanes on a reconstructed 4th Street Bridge over Interstate-694 in Oakdale.
Issue:
The reconstructed bridge across Interstate 694 (1-694) on 4th Street in Oakdale, includes two lanes of
general purpose traffic and two ten -foot (minimum) pedestrian and bicycle lanes. Two METRO Gold Line
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes will also be constructed and funded in the amount of $3 million by the
METRO Gold Line project, through a Federal Transit Administration Capital Improvement Grant
program. This legislative request is for general purpose and pedestrian and bicycle lanes, only. The total
cost of the reconstructed bridge is $7 million.
The reconstructed bridge will provide a crucial walking and biking connection where one does not exist
today. Improved multi -modal connections within Oakdale - and along the future METRO Gold Line - will
help leverage planned investments in the area, and ease the burden of freeway barriers created in this
Oakdale neighborhood, near the intersection of 1-694 and 1-94.
Continued and coordinated transportation investments in a congested and rapidly growing corridor
benefits the east metro as a whole, and better situates the city of Oakdale to meet their planned goals
in 2040 and beyond.
Support and Opposition:
Support has come from the City of Oakdale; the Metropolitan Council; Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT); and East Metro Strong. Opposition may come from those opposed to roadway
expansion.
Previous Consideration:
Washington County has not previously requested funding for bridge replacement in this location.
No Action:
No action means that Gold Line BRT will operate on the existing two lane bridge structure in mixed
traffic. No additional vehicle lanes or bicycle & pedestrian accommodations will be provided. As a result,
the near -term opportunity to alleviate a barrier to the Oakdale community will be lost.
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer, Deputy Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
wayne.sandberg@co.washington.mn.us
17
NEW BUS ROUTE 363
(RED ROCK CORRIDOR PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION)
Position:
The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA) supports funds for a two-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 Saint Paul and Cottage Grove, expanding multimodal travel
options in the Highway 61 corridor. Stops will include the Newport Transit Station, owned by
Washington County, which is located by the Red Rock Square Apartments developed by the Washington
County Community Development Agency.
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.
A two-year demonstration of Route 363 is estimated to cost $5,600,000.
Support and Opposition:
Support comes from the Red Rock Corridor Commission, Metro Transit, local communities along the
corridor, East Metro Strong, and those who support buses over other public transit options.
Opposition may come from those opposed to expansion of transit in the region.
Previous Consideration:
Through the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan completed in 2016, 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 Saint Paul and Cottage Grove in the amount of $7,382,834. This application was
not funded.
Washington County also submitted a request for demonstration funds in the 2017 and 2018 legislative
sessions. These requests were 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.
19
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, Planning Division Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4316
jan.lucke@co.washington.mn.us
20
MOTOR VEHICLE LEASE SALES TAX REVENUE
Position:
Washington County supports the current distribution of the Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax Revenue
(MVLST) and opposes any change to this distribution.
Issue:
Current law (MN Statute 297A.815 Subd. 3) distributes revenues from the sales tax on leased vehicles as
follows:
• 38 percent to the County State Aid Highway Fund
• 38 percent to the Greater Minnesota Transit Account
• 13 percent to the Minnesota State Transportation Fund, and
• 11 percent to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund
Distribution (11 percent) to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund ensures that all counties in Minnesota
receive a portion of this revenue.
Distribution (38 percent) to the County State Aid Highway Fund is directed toward the counties in the
metropolitan area, excluding Hennepin and Ramsey. The portion of MVLST revenue distributed to the
suburban counties helps address transportation infrastructure needs directly related to significant
population growth. These needs are well beyond what traditional financial resources such as county state
aid can provide. The distribution is based on the population of each county and recognizes the unique and
costly transportation needs of these counties.
Support and Opposition:
Support comes from the Counties of Scott, Dakota, Anoka and Carver. Attempts have been made by
metropolitan counties that do not receive funding through the current distribution to change the
distribution.
Previous Consideration:
The current distribution of these revenues was implemented by the legislature in 2017 as part of a
balanced package of transportation investments.
No Action:
We support the current law and oppose efforts to change this distribution.
Financial Implications:
Washington County receives $7.2 million in revenue from this distribution annually. Any changes to the
distribution that would reduce this amount will have a significant detrimental effect on our capital
improvement program.
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer, Deputy Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
wayne.sandberg@co.washington.mn.us
`1
SUPPORT FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
1-94/494/694 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE
Position:
Washington County supports the Minnesota Department of Transportation in developing regional
partnerships in their efforts to plan and construct both short term and long term improvements to the
1-94/494/694 System Interchange area.
Issue:
The 1-94 Corridor in the east metro is a vital link between the Twin Cities to Chicago and the East Coast.
Each day, due to the outdated cloverleaf design, this interchange experiences substantial congestion as
nearly 113,000 vehicles merge and weave across multiple lanes. Additionally, the design does not
accommodate the significant amount of freight traffic that uses it. The result is a poor safety record with
a 45 percent increase in crashes over a five year period and a total of 517 crashes between 2011 and 2016.
In 2019 and 2020 MnDOT will be working with the county and cities to implement a $30 million project
on bridge preservation, safety and mobility improvements at the system interchange. The design will
improve the mobility and safety of the weave section between the loops and the southbound 494/694
freeway through lanes. Specifically these improvements will include:
• Replace and widen north and southbound bridges to improve bridge condition and safety
• Pavement replacement
• New southbound auxiliary lanes from 10th to 1-94 and from 1-94 to Tamarack Road to
improve mobility
• New north and southbound "Buffer Lanes' to improve mobility and safety
• Rebuild ramp to improve safety
Beginning in early 2019, MnDOT is also working on a Visioning Study for the system interchange. This
study will develop a strategic vision and determine improvements needed to develop an interchange that
will eliminate congestion, and provide safe and efficient movement of vehicles and freight. The study will
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 and will be coordinated with the Gateway Corridor Gold Line project. It is expected that the
outcome of this planning effort will be a series of recommended improvements to the system interchange,
including fly -over ramps, expected to cost in excess of $200 million.
Support and Opposition:
Supported by Washington and Ramsey Counties, City of Woodbury, and City of Oakdale. There is no
known opposition to these efforts.
No Action:
Partnerships and support for these efforts is important to ensure successful planning and construction of
these improvements.
Financial Implications:
MnDOT funds are being used at this time.
23
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer, Deputy Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
wayne.sandberg@co.washington.mn.us
24
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. Often these shifts are a product of conference committee
negotiations that do not allow for information to be shared with legislators on the impact of these shifts.
These shifts also often include costs that the county has limited or no ability to manage, and that places
increasing pressure on the property tax to fund state services that are more appropriately paid for with
less regressive state funding sources like the income and sales tax.
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 positions included in final legislation are often 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 funded by less regressive state funding sources.
Financial Implications:
County Human Services Cost Shares:
• Minnesota Security Hospital, St. Peter
o Counties responsible for ten percent of the daily cost
o Counties responsible for 50 percent of the cost for the Transitional Program
• Forensic Nursing Home, St. Peter
o Counties responsible for 10 percent of the daily cost
o Counties responsible for 50 percent 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 percent of cost for individuals who are determined by the
State to no longer meet medical criteria for placement
25
• Community Restoration (to determine competency to stand trial):
o Counties responsible for 20 percent of the daily cost while deemed medically necessary
o Counties responsible for 50 percent of the daily cost when individual no longer requires
program services
o Counties responsible for 100 percent of the daily cost if charges are dropped. Counties
have no ability to budget accurately for this mandate and have no appeal rights to the
State Department of Human Services even when there is evidence that the individual may
not need the level of care required by statute.
• Minnesota Sex Offender Program
o Counties responsible for ten percent of daily cost prior to August 1, 2011; 25 percent 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.
Contact Person:
Chris Sorensen, Director
Washington County Community Services
651-430-6455
chris.sorensen@co.washington.mn.us
26
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 legislative change would not modify the requirement to hold a special election and it is in rare
cases where this appointment option would be utilized, little to no opposition is 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:
Legislation introduced during the 901h Legislature (2017-2018) authorizing the appointment of an interim
county commissioner had numerous authors from the Washington County legislative delegation and has
been a legislative priority of the County Board for the last three years. This legislation was heard in both the
House and Senate and was included in the 2017 House Omnibus Election Bill but was not included in the final
version of the bill.
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 Jennifer Wagenius, Director
Washington County Office of Administration Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services
651-430-6003 651-430-6182
kevin.corbid@co.washington.mn.us jennifer.wagenius@co.washington.mn.us
27
METRO CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Legislative Policies
January 2019
Metro Cities
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Ave. W.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000
Website: www.MetroCitiesMN.or Fax: (651) 281-1299 Twitter: @MetroCitiesMN
Ms. Patricia Nauman Mr. Charlie VanderAarde Mr. Steven Huser
Executive Director Gov't Relations Specialist Gov't Relations Specialist
(651) 215-4002 (651) 215-4001 (651) 215-4003
PatriciakffetroCitiesMN.org Charlie(&MetroCitiesMN.org StevenkffetroCitiesWorg
Ms. Kimberly Ciarrocchi
Office Manager
(651) 215-4004
Kimberly@MetroCitiesMN. org
Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue & Taxation 1
1-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship
1-B
Revenue Diversification and Access 2
1-C
Restrictions on Local Government Budgets 2
1-D
Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements 2
1-E
Local Government Aid (LGA) 3
1-F
State Property Tax Relief Programs 3
1-G
Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value 4
1-H
Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program 4
1-I
Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program 4
14
Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits 5
1-K
State Property Tax 5
1-L
Class Rate Tax System 5
1-M
Regional Facility Host Communities 5
1-N
Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases 6
1-0
City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance 6
1-P
Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) 6
1-Q
State Program Revenue Sources 7
1-R
Post -Employment Benefits 7
1-S
Health Care Insurance Programs 7
1-T
State Budget Stability 8
1-U
Taxation of Electronic Commerce 8
IN
Payments for Services to Tax Exempt Property 8
1-W
Proceeds from Tax Forfeited Property 8
1-X
MN Licensing and Registration System 9
General Government 11
2-A
Mandates, Zoning & Local Authority
11
2-13
City Enterprise Activities
11
2-C
Firearms on City Property
11
2-D
911 Telephone Tax
12
2-E
800 MHz Radio System
12
2-F
Building Codes
12
2-G
Administrative Fines
13
2-H
Residential Programs
13
2-I
Annexation
13
24
Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact
14
2-K
Urban Forest Management Funding
14
2-L
Regulation of Harmful Substances and Products
15
2-M
Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority
15
2-N
Organized Waste Collection
15
2019 Legislative Policies
Table of Contents
2-0 Election Administration 16
2-P Utility Franchise Fees, Accountability and Cost Transparency 16
2-Q Water Supply 17
2-R Regulation of Massage Therapists 18
Housing & Economic Development 19
Policies 3-A to 3-J: Introduction
19
3-A
City Role in Housing
19
3-B
City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
19
3-C
Inclusionary Housing
21
3-D
Metropolitan Council Role in Housing
21
3-E
Allocation of Affordable Housing Need
22
3-F
Housing Performance Scores
23
3-G
State Role in Housing
24
3-H
Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing
26
3-I
Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk
27
34
Housing Ordinance Enforcement
28
3-K
Economic Development, Redevelopment and Workforce Readiness
28
3-K
(1) Economic Development
29
3-K
(2) Redevelopment
30
3-K
(3) Workforce Readiness
31
3-L
Tax Increment Financing
31
3-M
Eminent Domain
33
3-N
Community Reinvestment
34
3-0
Business Incentives Policy
34
3-P
Broadband Technology
35
3-Q
City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development
36
3-R
Impaired Waters
36
Metropolitan Agencies 39
4-A
Goals and Principles for Regional Governance
39
4-B
Regional Governance Structure
40
4-C
Comprehensive Analysis and Oversight of Metropolitan Council
40
4-D
Funding Regional Services
41
4-E
Regional Systems
41
4-F
Regional Water Supply Planning
41
4-G
Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
42
4-H
Comprehensive Planning Process
43
4-I
Comprehensive Planning Schedule
43
44
Local Zoning Authority
44
4-K
Regional Growth
44
4-L
Natural Resource Protection
46
2019 Legislative Policies
Table of Contents
4-M Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) 46
4-N Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) 47
4-0 Funding Regional Parks & Open Space 48
4-P Livable Communities 48
4-Q Density 49
Transportation 51
Transportation Policies and Funding Introduction
51
5-A
Road and Bridge Funding
51
5-13
Regional Transit System
52
5-C
Transit Financing
53
5-D
Street Improvement Districts
53
5-E
Highway Turnbacks & Funding
53
5-F
"3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role
54
5-G
Electronic Imaging for Enforcement of Traffic Laws
54
5-H
Transportation Network Companies and Alternative Transportation Modes
54
5-I
Airport Noise Mitigation
54
54
Funding for Non -Municipal State Aid (MSAS) City Streets
55
5-K
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
55
5-L
Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
56
5-M
Plat Authority
56
5-N
MnDOT Maintenance Budget
56
5-0
Transit Taxing District
57
5-P
Complete Streets
57
Committee Rosters 59
Municipal Revenue & Taxation 59
Housing & Economic Development 60
Metropolitan Agencies 61
Transportation & General Government 62
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
1 -A State and Local Fiscal Relationship
A functional state and local fiscal relationship must emphasize adequacy, equitability,
sustainability and accountability for public resources, and effective communication among the
state, cities, and the public on the roles and responsibilities of state and local governments. An
effective partnership must also emphasize practices that strengthen collaboration and partnership
between the state and local units of government.
Services provided by cities are traditionally funded through a combination of property taxes,
fees/charges and state aids. Increasingly, cities are bearing more of the costs for services that
have historically been the responsibility of the state.
Metro Cities supports a strong state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the
following principles:
• Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that
emphasizes maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication
between the state and local units of government, and to the public, about state and local
roles and responsibilities;
• Certainty, predictability and reliability in revenue sources including the property
tax and local government aids, and dedicated funds to meet specific local government
needs. Metro Cities opposes the diversion of such dedicated funds to help balance state
budgets;
• Full state funding to cover mandates enacted by the state, and flexibility for local
governments in implementing state mandates to ensure local costs are minimized;
• The need for local decision -making authority by local elected officials with regard to
the terms and conditions of employment for local government employees, including
compensation, recognition, and benefit decisions;
• Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to be met,
citizens to receive adequate services at similar levels of taxation, and that maintain our
state's economic vitality and competitiveness;
• Adequate and timely notification regarding new legislative programs or
modifications to existing state programs or policies to allow cities sufficient time to plan for
implementation, and any effects on local budgeting processes;
The concept of performance measuring, but opposition to using state established
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
local performance measurements to determine the allocation of state aids to local
governments, or to deny local governments the authority to establish their own budgets and
levies, as such measurements do not account for varying local needs and circumstances.
1-B Revenue Diversification and Access
Metro Cities supports a balanced and diversified revenue system that acknowledges diverse
city characteristics, needs and revenue capacities, and allows for greater stability in
revenues. Any diminished level in the provision of state aids creates severe challenges for many
cities in the provision of public services and increased reliance on the property tax.
Metro Cities supports greater access to other tax and revenue sources and the ability of
cities to impose a local option sales tax for public improvements without the need for
special legislation.
Metro Cities supports current laws that provide for municipal franchise fee authority, and
opposes statutory changes such as reverse referendum requirements or other constraints
that would reduce local authority and flexibility for establishing, amending, or renewing
franchise fees and interfere with local public processes and goals for establishing such fees.
Metro Cities supports having local sales tax referendums conducted at a general or special
election. The Legislature should recognize the equity considerations involved with local sales
taxes, and continue to provide aids to cities that have high needs, overburdens and/or low fiscal
capacity.
1-C Restrictions on Local Government Budgets
Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits, reverse referenda, super majority requirements
for levy and valuation freezes, or other restrictions on local government budgeting and
taxing processes. Such restrictions undermine local budgeting and taxing processes, planned
growth, and the relationship between locally elected officials and their residents by allowing the
state to decide the appropriate level of local taxation and services, despite varying local
conditions and circumstances.
1-D Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements
State laws require cities to prepare and submit or publish numerous budget and financial reports.
These requirements often create significant costs to cities, and some requirements result in
duplication. Additional reporting requirements should have a clearly defined statement of public
purpose and need not covered under existing requirements and balance the need for additional
information with the costs of compiling and submitting the information.
Considering the numerous existing reporting requirements, Metro Cities supports reducing
the number of mandated reports. Metro Cities supports efforts to consolidate municipal
government financial reporting requirements in the Office of the State Auditor, including
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
an electronic submission alternative to any remaining paper filing requirements, and to
authorize the use of web publication where newspaper publication is currently required.
1-E Local Government Aid (LGA)
Metro Cities supports Local Government Aid (LGA) as a means of ensuring that cities
remain affordable places to live and work while meeting the basic public service demands
of residents and businesses.
Metro Cities' policies recognize that the state's prosperity and vitality depend significantly upon
the strength of the metropolitan region. Metro Cities supported 2013 statutory modifications to
the LGA program to help better address the needs of cities across the state, and of metro cities in
their support of the state's economic growth and supports further examination of the LGA
formula to ensure it is continuing to address these needs.
To ensure appropriation levels are adequate to meet LGA program objectives, Metro
Cities supports increasing the LGA appropriation to address cities' unmet need as defined
by the LGA formula as well as increases in the LGA appropriation to account for inflation.
By way of reference, the total need identified in the LGA formula for 2019 is estimated at $814.6
million, whereas the current funding is set at $534.4 million, putting the remaining need at
$280.2 million.
Metro Cities supports formula -based allocations for increases to the LGA appropriation,
and opposes freezes of the LGA appropriation, or reductions of LGA for balancing state
budget deficits. Metro Cities also opposes artificial limits or reductions that single out
specific cities, and further opposes using LGA as financial leverage to influence particular
activities and policy decisions at the local level.
1-F State Property Tax Relief Programs
Metro Cities supports state funded property tax relief programs paid directly to homestead
property taxpayers such as the "circuit breaker" program and enhanced targeting for
special circumstances. Metro Cities also supports the renter's credit program. Metro Cities
supports an analysis of the state's property tax relief programs to determine their
effectiveness and equity in providing property tax relief to individuals and families across
the state.
Metro Cities supports efforts by the Minnesota Department of Revenue to expand outreach
and notification efforts about state property tax relief programs to homeowners, and
notifications to local units of government to support such efforts. Metro Cities also
supports legislative modifications to make tax relief payments to taxpayers automatic.
Metro Cities supports the use of the Department of Revenue's "Voss" database to link
income and property values, and the consideration of income relative to property taxes
paid in determining eligibility for state property tax relief programs. Updates to the database
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
should occur in a timely manner and data reviewed periodically to ensure the database's
accuracy and usefulness.
1-G Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value
Metro Cities opposes the use of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation
purposes, since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of property and create
disparities between properties of equal value.
1-H Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program
The Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program (MVHE) provides property tax relief to
qualifying homesteads, through reductions in property tax values, which shifts property taxes
within jurisdictions. The MVHE replaced a former Market Value Homestead Credit Program,
which provided credits on local government tax bills to qualifying properties, with
reimbursements provided by the state to local governments.
Metro Cities opposes restoration of the former Market Value Homestead Credit, as
reimbursements to local governments were inconsistent, and encourages further study of
the exclusion program, with input by city officials, to determine the program's overall
efficacy and its effects on local tax bases.
1-1 Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program
The Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program, enacted in 1971, was created for the purposes
o£
• providing a way for local governments to share in the resources generated by the growth
of the metropolitan area without removing existing resources;
• promoting orderly development of the region by reducing the impact of fiscal
considerations on the location of business and infrastructure;
whole;
establishing incentives for all parts of the area to work for the growth of the area as a
helping communities at various stages of development; and
• encouraging protection of the environment by reducing the impact of fiscal
considerations to ensure protection of parks, open space and wetlands.
Metro Cities supports the Fiscal Disparities Program. Metro Cities opposes any diversion
from the fiscal disparities pool to fund specific state, regional or local programs, goals or
projects as such diversions contradict the purposes of the program.
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program should only be considered
within a framework of comprehensive reform efforts of the state's property tax, aids and credits
system. Any proposed legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program
must be evaluated utilizing the criteria of fairness, equity, stability, transparency and coherence
in the treatment of cities and taxpayers across the metropolitan region, and must continue to
serve the program's intended purposes.
Metro Cities opposes legislation that would allow for capturing and pooling growth in
residential tax capacity to fund specific programs or objectives.
Further studies or task forces to consider modifications to the fiscal disparities program must
include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives.
1-J Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits
Metro Cities strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state constitution,
as such limits eliminate flexibility by the Legislature or local governments to respond to
unanticipated critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating economic situations.
When services such as education, public safety and health care require increased funding beyond
the overall limit, other publicly funded services potentially stand to receive inadequate resources.
Constitutional limits result in reduced revenue bases during times of economic downturn and the
inability to recover to previous service levels when economic prosperity returns.
1-K State Property Tax
The state levies a property tax on commercial/industrial and cabin property. Since cities' only
source of general funds is the property tax, Metro Cities opposes extension of the state
property tax to additional classes of property. Metro Cities opposes using the state
property tax to fund specific programs or objectives generally funded through state income
and sales tax revenue.
In the interest of increasing transparency, Metro Cities supports efforts to have the state
provide information on the property tax statement regarding the state property tax. Metro
Cities opposes exempting specific classes of property under the tax as such exemptions shift
the costs of the tax onto other classes of property.
1-L Class Rate Tax System
Metro Cities opposes elimination of the class rate tax system or applying future levy
increases to market value since this further complicates the property tax system.
1-M Regional Facility Host Communities
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Municipalities hosting regional facilities (such as utilities, landfills or aggregate mining) incur
costs and community effects such as enviromnental damage or lost economic development
opportunities. Communities should be compensated to accommodate the effects of these
facilities that provide benefits to the region and state. Metro Cities supports legislative efforts
to offset the negative impacts of these facilities and activities on host communities. Metro
Cities would prefer that cities and townships be allowed to collect a host fee that may be adjusted
when state decisions impact those fees.
1-N Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
Metro Cities supported the 2013 reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for purchases of
goods and services made by cities. The reinstatement enacted in 2013 does not apply to all
local government purchases.
To ensure that citizens receive the full benefit of this exemption, the law should treat purchases
of all local government units the same, including purchases made by special taxing districts, joint
powers entities, or any other agency or instrumentality of local government.
Metro Cities supports granting an extension of the motor vehicle sales tax exemption to all
municipal vehicles that are used for general city functions and are provided by
governmental entities. Currently, only certain vehicles, including road maintenance vehicles
purchased by townships, and municipal fire trucks and police vehicles not registered for use on
public roads, are exempt from the MVST.
Metro Cities supports simplifying the process on the exemption for construction materials
that is complex and cost ineffective, or converting the process to a refund program.
1-0 City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance
Metro Cities opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are
necessary to maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase
capital goods and infrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and maintain high level bond
ratings.
1-P Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA)
Metro Cities supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary
contribution increases and a sixty percent employer/forty percent employee split for the
PERA Police and Fire Plan. Metro Cities also supports state assistance to local
governments to cover any additional contribution burdens placed on cities over and above
contribution increases required by employees. Cities should receive sufficient notice of these
increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting purposes.
Metro Cities opposes benefit improvements for active employees or retirees until the
financial health of the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plan are restored.
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Metro Cities supports modifications to help align PERA contributions and costs, and
reduce the need for additional contribution increases, including a modification of PERA
eligibility guidelines to account for temporary, seasonal and part-time employment
situations, the use of pro -rated service credit and a comprehensive review of exclusions to
simplify eligibility guidelines. Further employer contribution rate increases should be avoided
until other cost alignment mechanisms are considered.
Metro Cities supports cities and fire relief associations working together to determine the
best application of State Fire Aid. Flexibility in the application of State Fire Aid, where
combination departments exist, will ensure that fire services can be provided in the most cost
effective means possible.
Regarding police pension contributions, Metro Cities supports a proactive review of factors
contributing to the financial status of police and fire pension plans, to ensure that
structural adjustments are considered in conjunction with potential increases in employee
and employer contribution rates. Specifically, an area that could be considered is contractual
overtime impacts on pension levels.
1-Q State Program Revenue Sources
Metro Cities opposes any attempt by the state to finance programs of statewide value and
significance, that are traditionally funded with state revenues, with local revenue sources
such as municipal utilities or property tax mechanisms. Statewide programs serve important
state goals and objectives, and should be financed through traditional state revenue sources such
as the income or sales tax.
Metro Cities further opposes substituting traditionally state funded programs with funding
mechanisms that would disparately affect taxpayers in the metropolitan area.
1-R Post -Employment Benefits
Metro Cities supported statutory changes that allow local governments to establish trusts
from which to fund post -employment health and life insurance benefits for public
employees, with participation by cities on a strictly voluntary basis, in recognition that
cities have differing local needs and circumstances. Cities should also retain the ability to
determine the level of post -employment benefits to be provided to employees.
1-S Health Care Insurance Programs
Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs, but opposes
actions that undermine local flexibility to manage rising insurance costs. Metro Cities
encourages a full examination of the rising costs of health care and the impacts on city employers
and employees. Metro Cities also supports a study of the fiscal impacts to both cities and
retirees of pooling retirees separately from active employees.
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
1-T State Budget Stability
Metro Cities strongly supports a state revenue system that provides for stability, flexibility
and adequacy in the system, reduces the volatility of state revenues and improves the long-
term balance of state revenues and expenditures. Metro Cities supports a statutory budget
reserve minimum that is adequate to manage risks and fluctuations in the state's tax
system and a cash flow reserve account of sufficient size so that the state can avoid short
term borrowing to manage cash flow fluctuations.
Metro Cities also supports an examination of the property tax system and the relationships
between state and local tax bases, with an emphasis on state budget cuts and effects on
property taxes. State budget deficits must be balanced with statewide sources and must not
further reduce funding for property tax relief programs and aids to local governments that result
in local governments bearing more responsibility for the costs of services that belong to the state.
1-U Taxation of Electronic Commerce
Metro Cities supports efforts to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system to simplify
sales and use tax collection and administration by retailers and states. Metro Cities
supports policies that encourage remote retailers to collect and remit state sales taxes in
states that are complying with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.
Metro Cities opposes legislation that allows accommodation intermediaries such as online
travel companies a tax exemption that terminates obligations to pay hotel taxes to state and
local governments, or otherwise restricts legal actions by states and localities. In 2011 the
Legislature clarified that these services are subject to state sales tax. Metro Cities supports
additional statutory changes to further clarify that all lodging taxes, whether administered
by the state or locally, apply to total charges, including charges for services provided by
accommodation intermediaries.
1-V Payments for Services to Tax Exempt Property
Metro Cities supports city authority to collect payments from tax exempt property owners
to cover the costs of services to those entities, similar to statutory authority for special
assessments. Metro Cities opposes legislation that would exempt nonprofit entities from
paying user fees and service charges.
1-W Proceeds from Tax Forfeited Property
Metro Cities supports changes to state laws governing the proceeds for tax forfeited
properties. Currently, counties can recover administrative costs related to a property before
other allocations are made and the law allows for the county to recoup a percentage of
assessment costs once administrative costs are allocated. The result is often no allocation or a
very low allocation, and usually insufficient level of proceeds available for covering special
assessments, unpaid taxes and fees to cities. State processes addressing tax -forfeited properties
2019 Legislative Policies
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
can have implications for local land use plans and requirements and can result in unexpected and
significant fiscal impacts on local communities. The current process also does not require the
repayment of unpaid utility charges, or building and development fees.
Metro Cities supports statutory changes that balance repayment of unpaid taxes and
assessments, utility charges and other fees and that more equitably allocates the
distribution of proceeds between counties and cities.
1-X MN Licensing and Registration System
Issues at the state government level associated with the rollout of the new MN Licensing and
Registration System (MNLARS) have caused significant disruptions to services provided by
local deputy registrars and resulted in unanticipated costs to registrars. In some cases, local
offices are being required to rely on other local revenues, such as the property tax, to manage
normal expenses due to unresolved glitches in the system and the shift from the state to the local
level for additional processing time. The ongoing challenges with the system also create a high
potential for negative public perceptions regarding local government services, on an issue over
which local governments have no ability to control.
Metro Cities supports actions by the state to expedite necessary corrections to the
MNLARS system and supports funding to compensate local deputy registrars for
unanticipated costs associated with implementation and a shifting of per -transaction
processing burdens. Metro Cities further supports a consideration of increases to existing
fee levels, which are set in state statutes, to ensure that local deputy registrars can
sufficiently function and meet continually evolving local registrar service needs.
2019 Legislative Policies
10
General Government
2-A Mandates, Zoning & Local Authority
To serve their local citizens and communities, city officials must have sufficient local control
and decision -making authority. Metro Cities supports local decision -making authority and
opposes statutory changes that erode local authority and decision making.
Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, Subdivision 1, provide cities authority to regulate and set local
ordinances for zoning. Metro Cities supports existing state laws that provide for this
authority.
Metro Cities supports statutory changes that give local officials greater authority to
approve or deny variances to allow flexibility in responding to the needs of the community.
Metro Cities also supports the removal of statutory barriers to uniform zoning ordinance
amendment processes for all cities, regardless of city size classification.
Metro Cities opposes the imposition of legislative mandates that increase local costs without
a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. Unfunded mandates potentially
increase property taxes and impede cities' ability to fund traditional service needs.
To allow for greater collaboration and flexibility in providing local services, Metro Cities
encourages the removal of barriers to coordination between cities and other units of government
or entities.
2-13 City Enterprise Activities
Creation of an enterprise operation allows a city to provide a desired service while maintaining
financial and management control. The state should refrain from infringing on this ability to
provide and control services for the benefit of community residents.
Metro Cities supports cities having authority to establish city enterprise operations in
response to community needs, local preferences or state mandates, or that help ensure
residents' quality of life.
2-C Firearms on City Property
Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns and other weapons in city -owned buildings,
facilities and parks and to determine whether to allow permit -holders to bring guns into
municipal buildings, liquor stores, city council chambers and city sponsored youth activities. It is
not Metro Cities' intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking
lots, on city streets, city sidewalks or on locally approved hunting land.
Metro Cities supports local control to allow or prohibit handguns and other weapons on
2019 Legislative Policies
11
General Government
city -owned property.
2-D 911 Telephone Tax
Public safety answering points (PSAPs) must be able to continue to rely on state 911 revenues to
pay for upgrades and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and operational support
and dispatcher training.
Metro Cities supports state funding for technology and training necessary to provide the
number and location of wireless and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) calls to 911 on
computer screens and transmit that data to police, fire and first responders.
2-E 800 MHz Radio System
Metro Cities urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to obtain required
infrastructure and subscriber equipment (portable and mobile radios) as well as provide funding
for operating costs, since the prime purpose of this system is to allow public safety agencies and
other units of government the ability to communicate effectively.
Metro Cities supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (previously
the Metropolitan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800 MHz radio
system, as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or become a part of
the 800 MHz Radio System unless they so choose.
2-F Building Codes
Thousands of new housing units are constructed annually in the metropolitan area.
Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the Construction Code Fund,
with proportional distribution based on the area of enforcement where fees were received.
Metro Cities further supports efforts by the state, cities and builders to collectively identify
appropriate uses for the fund, including education, analysis of new materials and
construction techniques, building code updating, building inspector training, and
development of performance standards and identification of construction "best practices."
Metro Cities supports including the International Green Construction Code as an optional
appendix to the State Building Code to allow cities to utilize appropriate parts of those
guidelines in their communities. Metro Cities also supports adopting the international
energy conservation code to the state building code without amendments. Metro Cities does
not support legislative solutions that fail to recognize the interrelationships among builders,
state building codes and cities. Metro Cities supports efforts to increase awareness of the
potential impacts and benefits of requiring sprinklers in new homes and townhouses and
supports discussion and the dissemination of information on these impacts via the code
adoption process through the Department of Labor and Industry.
2019 Legislative Policies
12
General Government
2-G Administrative Fines
Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with increasing costs to
local units of government. The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs.
Metro Cities supports the administrative fine authority that allows cities to issue
administrative fines for defined local traffic offenses and supports further modifications to
enhance functionality of this authority. Metro Cities continues to support cities' authority
to use administrative fines for regulatory ordinances such as building codes, zoning codes,
health codes, and public safety and nuisance ordinances.
Metro Cities supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for regulatory
matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher -level state traffic and criminal
offenses. Metro Cities also endorses a fair hearing process before a disinterested third party.
2-H Residential Programs
Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential programs
have appropriate care and supervision and that neighborhoods are not disproportionately
impacted by high concentrations of residential programs. Historically, federal and state laws
have discouraged the concentration of residential group homes so as not to promote areas that
reinforce institutional quality settings.
Under current law, operators of certain residential programs are not required to notify cities
when they intend to purchase single-family housing for this purpose. Cities do not have the
authority to regulate the locations of residential programs. Cities have reasonable concerns about
high concentrations of these facilities in residential neighborhoods, and additional traffic and
service deliveries surrounding these facilities when they are grouped closely together.
Municipalities recognize and support the services residential programs provide. However, cities
also have an interest in preserving balance between residential programs and other uses in
residential neighborhoods.
Providers applying to operate residential programs should be required to notify the city when
applying for licensure to be informed of local ordinance requirements as a part of the application
process. Licensing agencies should be required to notify the city of properties receiving licensure
to be operated as residential programs.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications to require licensed agencies and licensed
providers that operate residential programs to notify the city of properties being operated
as residential programs. Metro Cities also supports the establishment of appropriate non -
concentration standards for residential programs, to prevent clustering, and supports
enforcement of these rules by the appropriate county agencies.
2-1 Annexation
Attempts have been made in recent years to reduce tensions between cities and townships in
2019 Legislative Policies
13
General Government
annexations. A Municipal Boundary Adjustment Task Force worked to develop
recommendations regarding best practices annexation training for city and township officials to
better communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. While the task force defined
differences between cities and townships, no significant advancements were made in creating
best practices.
Metro Cities supports continued legislative efforts to develop recommendations regarding
best practices and annexation training for city and township officials to better
communicate and plan for potential annexations. Further, Metro Cities supports
substantive changes to the state's annexation laws that will lead to better land use planning,
energy conservation, greater environmental protection, fairer tax bases, clarification of fee
reimbursement and fewer conflicts between townships and cities. Metro Cities also
supports technical annexation changes that are agreed to by cities and townships.
2-J Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact
Many issues including but not limited a metropolitan area groundwater monitoring network,
emerald ash borer management and the cleanup of storm -water retention ponds, come with
significant local costs, and have effects that reach beyond municipal boundaries.
Metro Cities supports the availability of statewide funding sources to address local issues
that have regional or statewide significance or are caused by state or regional actions.
Metro Cities opposes any requirement to enact ordinances more restrictive than state law
in exchange for access to these funds.
2-K Urban Forest Management Funding
Urban forests are an essential local infrastructure component. Dutch elm disease, oak wilt
disease, drought, storms, and emerald ash borer threaten public investments in trees and
controlling these issues can be greatly consequential for city budgets. The Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, through its Urban and Community Forestry program, and the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, through its Shade Tree and Invasive Species program, have
regulatory authority to direct tree sanitation and control programs. Although these programs
allow for addressing some tree disease, pest, and other problems, funding has been inadequate to
meet the need of cities to build capacity for tree programs and respond to catastrophic problems.
Cities share the goal of the state's Re -leaf Program —promoting and funding the inventory,
planning, planting, maintenance, and improvement of trees in cities throughout the state. In
addition, economic and environmental gains for storm water management, climate change
mitigation, air quality management, tourism, recreation, and other benefits must be protected
from tree loss. A lack of timely investment in urban forests costs cities significantly more in the
long run.
Cities are facing immediate costs for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of
2019 Legislative Policies
14
General Government
emerald ash borer (EAB) as it spreads across the state. The state has no program to assist cities in
covering those expenses.
Metro Cities supports funding for a state matching grant program to assist cities with
building capacity for urban forest management and meeting the costs of preparing for, and
responding to, catastrophic urban forest problems. Specifically, direct grants to cities are
desperately needed for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of trees related to
management of EAB. The state should establish an ongoing grant program with annual funding
that is usable for those activities.
2-L Regulation of Harmful Substances and Products
In metropolitan regions where most cities share boundaries with other cities, local bans of
harmful drugs and substances such as synthetic drugs, which have been found to be dangerous,
do not eliminate access to these products unless all cities take the same regulatory action.
Metro Cities supports statewide regulation and prohibition of products or substances in
circumstances where there is evidence that products present a danger to anyone who uses
them, where there is broad local support for a ban and where corresponding regulatory
issues have regional or statewide significance.
In addition, the Legislature should provide for the regulation of products that are known to
damage water quality, sewer collection, and storm and wastewater treatment systems, not just at
the treatment and infrastructure maintenance levels, but at the consumer and manufacturing
levels, through accurate labeling of products, public education, and recycling and re -use
programs.
2-M Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority
Cities are authorized to enact ordinances that disallow the placement of private wells within city
limits to ensure both water safety and availability for residents and businesses. This authority is
important for the appropriate management of local water supply conservation efforts. Municipal
water systems are financially dependent upon users to operate and maintain the system. A loss of
significant rate payers resulting from unregulated private well drilling would economically
destabilize water systems and could lead to contamination of the water supply.
Metro Cities supports current law authorizing cities to regulate and prohibit the placement
of private wells within municipal utility service boundaries and opposes any attempt to
remove or alter that authority. Metro Cities supports funding that can be used to cap
private wells.
2-N Organized Waste Collection
Cities over 1,000 in population are required by law to ensure all residents have solid waste
collection available to them. A city can meet the statutory requirement by licensing haulers to
2019 Legislative Policies
15
General Government
operate in an open collection system, authorize city employees to collect waste, or implement
organized collection through one or multiple haulers to increase efficiency, reduce truck traffic
and control costs to residents.
Metro Cities supports current laws that allow cities to work with existing haulers to achieve
the benefits of organized collection or investigate the merits of organized collection without
the pressure of a rigid timeline and requirement to pass `an intent to organize' at the
beginning of the discussion process. Metro Cities opposes any legislation that would further
increase the cost or further complicate the process cities are required to follow to organize
waste collection or prohibit cities from implementing, expanding or using organized waste
collection.
2-0 Election Administration
Cities play a critical role in managing and ensuring the integrity of elections. Any changes made
to election laws should not place undue financial or administrative burdens on local
governments. Additional costs resulting from election law changes should be the responsibility
of the state.
Eligible voters in Minnesota may vote by absentee ballot prior to Election Day. Starting 46 days
before the election, a voter can request, receive and cast an absentee ballot in one visit to their
county or city election offices.
As more and more voters choose to vote early with absentee balloting, improvements must be
made to increase efficiency of administering absentee balloting before Election Day, reduce the
potential for errors and to improve voter experience.
Metro Cities supports:
• 2016 laws allowing in -person absentee voters to place their ballots in a secure
tabulator, and statutory changes to allow this for the duration of absentee voting;
Establishing an earlier deadline for ending in -person absentee voting;
• Revising absentee ballot regulations to allow any person 18 and older to witness the
absentee process and sign the envelope as a witness; and
• Authorizing cities with health care facilities to schedule election judges to conduct
absentee voting at an earlier date in health care facilities.
2-P Utility Franchise Fees, Accountability and Cost Transparency
Minnesota cities are authorized by Minnesota statutes M.S. 216B and 30113.01 to require a
public utility (gas or electric) that provides services to the city or occupies the public right of
way within a city to obtain a franchise. Several metro area cities have entered agreements that
2019 Legislative Policies
16
General Government
require the utility to pay a fee to help offset costs of maintaining the right of way.
Cities are also adopting energy policies that use renewable energy resources to light or heat
public facilities. Policies and programs have also been instituted in cooperation with the public
utility franchisee to increase energy efficiency for all users. Cities also contract, at city expense,
with public utilities to "underground" wires. State laws also require energy companies to provide
more electric energy from renewable sources. The specific amounts vary by type of utility.
Metro Cities supports:
• State policies adopted by legislation or through rules of the Public Utility
Commission that provide cities with the authority to include city energy policies and
priorities in a franchise or similar agreement with a franchisee; and
• Greater accountability and transparency for city paid costs associated with
underground utility and similar work performed by electric utilities as part of a local
project.
2-Q Water Supply
Municipal water suppliers are charged with meeting the water supply needs of their communities
and work to do so with safe, reliable and cost-effective systems that are sustainable both for
established cities and for all future growth.
The aquifers in the metropolitan area cross municipal boundaries and therefore require a
coordinated regional approach to planning for their future availability. Currently, approximately
75% of municipal water supply in the metropolitan area comes from groundwater. With proper
management of the resource, the current water supply in the region is adequate; however,
Metropolitan Council projections predict localized declines in aquifer availability due to
population growth estimates if current usage levels are maintained.
Regulation of water is complex and compartmentalized. Various agencies permit its use, plan for
its availability, regulate stormwater, treat wastewater and protect the safety of water. To ensure
that water supply remains adequate and sustainable across the region, we must understand how
much water can be sustainably drawn from the aquifers and what effect increases in re -use,
conservation and recharge can have on the sustainability and availability of both groundwater
and surface water. Many of these strategies cross agency jurisdictions and will require improved
coordination and cooperation.
Municipal water suppliers have made significant infrastructure investments in their systems
based on calculated water availability and DNR permits. Proposals to reduce the reliance on
groundwater by switching municipal water systems from groundwater to surface water supplies
will come with significant costs that could place excessive burdens on local resources.
The outcomes and benefits of re -balancing the mix of groundwater and surface water use for
specific municipalities and the region must be identifiable before any projects are undertaken.
2019 Legislative Policies
17
General Government
The sustainability of our water supply is an issue of regional and statewide significance and the
expense of any necessary projects that benefit the region should not fall on individual cities. Any
attempts to address water supply sustainability must also take into account all water users,
including municipal water suppliers, industry, private wells, agriculture and contamination
containment.
The metropolitan region must consider the effects of groundwater use beyond the borders of the
metropolitan area on the region's groundwater availability and the cost of treating contaminants
in surface water that comes into the metropolitan area for use.
Metro Cities supports the removal of barriers to wastewater and storm water re -use,
improved inter -agency coordination, clarifying the appropriate roles of local, regional and
state governments with respect to water, streamlining and consolidating permit approval
processes and the availability of statewide resources to plan for and ensure the future
sustainability of water supply in the metropolitan area. Metro Cities also encourages the
Metropolitan Council, in consultation with municipalities, to find ways to re -use wastewater and
to develop other strategies to improve conservation.
Metro Cities supports state funding for costs associated with converting water supply from
groundwater to surface water and funds to encourage and promote water conservation as a
strategy to improve water sustainability and to improve and protect water quality.
2-R Regulation of Massage Therapists
In the absence of statewide regulation for massage therapy practitioners, many cities have
enacted local ordinances that require massage therapists to obtain a local professional license to
assist law enforcement in differentiating between legitimate providers and illegitimate businesses
fronting as massage therapy establishments.
Metro Cities supports statewide registration or licensure of massage therapists to aid local
law enforcement efforts in this area. Metro Cities supports cities' ability to continue to
license massage therapy businesses.
2019 Legislative Policies
18
Housing & Economic Development
Policies 3-A to 3-J: Introduction
While the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market -driven activity, all
levels of government — federal, state, regional and local — have a role to play in facilitating the
production and preservation of affordable housing in Minnesota.
Adequate affordable housing is a significant concern for the metropolitan region and effective
approaches require participation from all levels of government, the private sector and nonprofit
groups.
3-A City Role in Housing
All cities facilitate the development of housing via land use planning, zoning ordinances,
subdivision regulations and rental licensing. Cities should have sufficient authority and
flexibility to promote housing types best suited to meet local needs, public purposes and goals.
While local government financial resources constitute a relatively small portion of the total costs
of providing housing, many cities take on a significant administrative burden by providing
financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing programs
and supporting either local or countywide housing and redevelopment authorities and community
development agencies.
Cities are responsible for most of the ground -level housing policy in Minnesota; including land
use planning, code enforcement, rental licensing, and often the packaging of financial incentives.
Cities are also responsible for ensuring the health and safety of residents and the structural
soundness and livability of the local housing stock through building permits and inspections.
Cities establish fee structures for residential development to cover the costs of growth and
corresponding needs for public infrastructure. It is the responsibility of cities to periodically
review local requirements such as land use regulations and ordinances to ensure that they are
consistent with these purposes.
Metro Cities strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority
to carry out these functions in a locally determined manner.
3-13 City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
Metro Cities supports housing that is affordable and appropriate for people at all stages of
life. A variety of housing opportunities are important to the economic and social well-being of
individual communities and the region. The region faces challenges in meeting the existing and
future housing needs of low and moderate -income residents. Existing housing stock is aging,
with roughly half older than 40 years old, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Older housing
2019 Legislative Policies
19
Housing & Economic Development
stock can be more affordable; however, it requires investments to remain viable. Private
investors have purchased subsidized and unsubsidized rental units, made improvements and
charged higher rents that have made access to previously affordable units prohibitive for low and
moderate -income residents. The Metropolitan Council has projected the region will add nearly
35,000 households between 2021 and 2030 that will need affordable housing and require a
subsidy of $5 billion to meet the needs of households earning up to 50 percent area median
income.
Cities should work with the private and nonprofit sectors, counties, state agencies and the
Metropolitan Council to ensure the best use of new and existing tools and resources to produce
new housing and preserve existing affordable housing. Cities can facilitate the production and
preservation of affordable and life cycle housing by:
Applying for funding from available grant and loan programs;
• Using city and county funds to support affordable housing. This can include creating a
local or regional housing trust fund to support affordable housing;
• Providing information, encouraging participation and incentivizing participation in the
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to landlords;
• Working with developers and residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing
neighborhoods, including locations with access to amenities and services;
• Periodically examining local requirements, policies and review processes to determine
their impacts on the construction of affordable housing;
♦ Considering criteria under which a city may change its fee structure in support of
additional affordable housing;
Supporting housing design that is flexible for residents at multiple stages of life;
Periodically reviewing locally imposed development costs and policies;
• Employing innovative strategies to advance affordable housing needs such as public -
private partnerships or creative packaging of regulatory relief and incentives;
Using available regulatory mechanisms to shape housing communities;
• Recognizing inventory of subsidized and unsubsidized (naturally occurring) affordable
housing; and
• Working collaboratively with buyers and sellers of naturally occurring affordable housing
to retain affordability.
2019 Legislative Policies
20
Housing & Economic Development
3-C Inclusionary Housing
While Metro Cities believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory reform,
density bonuses as determined by local communities, and fee waivers, Metro Cities does not
believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve desired levels of affordability
solely through these steps. Several cities have established local inclusionary housing policies, in
some cases requiring the creation of affordable units if the housing development uses public
financial assistance or connecting the policy to zoning and land use changes. The Metropolitan
Council, in distributing the regional allocation of housing need, must recognize both the
opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council should partner with cities to
facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial assistance and/or advocating
for additional resources through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
Metro Cities supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed -use
neighborhoods throughout a city. Metro Cities supports a city's authority to enact its own
inclusionary housing policy. However, Metro Cities does not support passage of a
mandatory inclusionary housing state law imposed on local governments that would
require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be affordable to
households at specific income levels.
3-1) Metropolitan Council Role in Housing
The Metropolitan Council is statutorily required to assist cities with meeting the provisions of the
Land Use Planning Act (LUPA). The LUPA requires cities to adopt sufficient standards, plans
and programs to meet their local share of the region's overall projected need for low and
moderate -income housing. The Council's responsibilities include the preparation and adoption of
guidelines and procedures to assist local government units with accomplishing the requirements
of the LUPA.
The Metropolitan Council also offers programs and initiatives to create affordable housing
opportunities, including the Livable Communities Act programs and operation of a metropolitan
housing and redevelopment authority.
Unlike parks, transit and wastewater, housing is not a statutory regional system. The
Metropolitan Council's role, responsibilities and authority are more limited in scope, centered on
assisting local governments by identifying the allocation of need for affordable housing,
projecting regional growth and identifying available tools, resources, technical assistance and
methods that cities can use to create and promote affordable housing opportunities in their
communities.
The Metropolitan Council should work in partnership with local governments to ensure that the
range of housing needs for people at various life -cycle and incomes can be met. Metro Cities
opposes the elevation of housing to "Regional System" status. Metro Cities supports
removing the Metropolitan Council's review and comment authority connected to housing
revenue bonds under M.S.462C.04.
2019 Legislative Policies
21
Housing & Economic Development
In 2014, the Metropolitan Council released a housing policy plan, the first of its kind in nearly 30
years. A housing policy plan should include defined local, regional and state roles for the
provision of housing in all sectors, identify the availability of and need for tools and resources
for affordable and lifecycle housing, be explicit in supporting partnerships for the advocacy for
state and federal resources for housing, and encompass policies, best practices and technical
guidance for all types of housing. A plan should also recognize the diversity in local needs,
characteristics and resources.
Metro Cities supports strategies such as regional and sub -regional cooperation and the
sharing of best practices among local governments and other entities and partners to
address the region's affordable housing needs.
A policy plan should allow for ongoing research and analysis by the Metropolitan Council to
provide communities with timely and updated information on regional and local housing needs
and market trends as regional and local needs change and evolve. Metro Cities supports the
solicitation and use of local data, inputs and analyses and local governments' review of
such data.
Metro Cities supports continued city representation in any updated or new regional
housing policy plan.
3-E Allocation of Affordable Housing Need
The allocation of affordable housing need methodology determines how many affordable
housing units will be needed in the region and distributes the need by assigning each city its fair
share through an affordable housing need number. M.S. 473.859 requires cities to guide
sufficient land to accommodate local shares of the region's affordable housing need. Metro
Cities supports additional Metropolitan Council resources to assist cities in meeting cities'
share of the region's affordable housing needs.
Metro Cities supports the creation of a variety of housing opportunities. However, the
provision of affordable and lifecycle housing is a shared responsibility between the private sector
and government at all levels, including the federal government, state government and
Metropolitan Council. Land economics, construction costs and infrastructure needs create
barriers to the creation of affordable housing that cities cannot overcome without assistance.
Therefore, Metro Cities supports a Metropolitan Council affordable housing policy and
allocation of need methodology that recognizes the following tenets:
• Regional housing policies characterize individual city and sub -regional housing
numbers as a range of needs in the community;
• Cities need significant financial assistance from the federal and state government, as
well as the Metropolitan Council, to make progress toward creating additional affordable
housing and preserving existing affordable housing;
2019 Legislative Policies
22
Housing & Economic Development
• Metropolitan Council planning and policies must be more closely aligned to help
ensure that resources for transportation and transit are available to assist communities in
addressing their local share of the regional affordable housing need and to ensure that all
populations have adequate mobility to reach jobs, education and other destinations
regardless of where they live;
• The Metropolitan Council will not hold cities responsible if a city does not meet its
affordable housing need number. However, efforts to produce affordable housing may be
considered when awarding grants;
• The Metropolitan Council, with input by local government representatives, should
examine the allocation of need methodology with respect to the relationship between the
regional allocation and the local share of the need. The formula should also be routinely
evaluated to determine if market conditions have changed or if underlying conditions
should prompt readjustment of the formula;
• The Council should use a methodology that incorporates data accumulated by
individual cities and not limited to census driven or policy driven growth projections;
• The formula should be adjusted to better reflect the balance and breadth of existing
subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing stocks; and
• The Council should work with local governments through an appeals process in
order to resolve any local issues and concerns with respect to the need allocations.
3-F Housing Performance Scores
The Metropolitan Council calculates a city's housing performance score annually. Scores are
determined using an annual city survey as well as Council data. The Council uses city Housing
Performance Scores when scoring the Regional Solicitation for federal transportation points and
the Council's Livable Communities grant programs. Cities may review their own as well as other
cities' Housing Performance Scores periodically to gauge recent activity on affordable housing
preservation and new construction.
Metro Cities supports Housing Performance Score criteria that recognize varying local
resource capacities, tools, programs and policies to support housing production and the
market nature of housing development, and that do not limit cities to a prescriptive list of
tools and policies. The criteria for determining the score should adequately recognize the current
tools, policies and resources employed by local governments.
Metro Cities supports a process for local governments to review, comment on and appeal
preliminary Housing Performance Scores as well as provide additional information to be
used in calculating the scores.
2019 Legislative Policies
23
Housing & Economic Development
Metro Cities supports a consistent schedule for sending the annual housing production
survey to cities.
In considering Housing Performance Score uses and criteria:
The Council should engage in a periodic review of the formula;
• Any proposed new or expanded uses or programs in which the Housing Performance
Scores would be used should be reviewed by local officials; and
• The Council should recognize market factors such as downward economic cycles when
setting timelines and look -backs in calculating recent affordable housing production.
3-G State Role in Housing
The state must be an active participant in providing funding for housing, including direct
funding, financial incentives and initiatives to assist local governments and developers to support
affordable housing and housing appropriate for people at all stages of life. State funding is a
major and necessary component for the provision of housing. Current resource levels are
insufficient to meet the spectrum of needs in the metropolitan region and across the state.
Primarily through programs administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA),
the state establishes the general direction and prioritization of housing issues, and financially
supports a variety of housing, including transitional housing, supportive housing, senior housing,
workforce housing and family housing. Minnesota's low-income rental property classification,
commonly known as class 4d, allows landlords to certify qualifying low-income rental property.
The state must continue to be an active partner in addressing life cycle and affordable housing
needs.
Workforce housing is generally defined as housing that supports economic development and job
growth and is affordable to the local workforce. A statewide program, administered through the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, supports workforce homeownership efforts in the
metropolitan area. State policies and funding should recognize that affordable housing options
that are accessible to jobs and meet the needs of a city's workforce, are important to the
economic competitiveness of cities and the metro region. In addition, significant housing related
racial disparities persist in Minnesota, especially as it relates to the percentage of households of
color who pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, and as it relates to the
significant disparity gap in homeownership rates.
Metro Cities supports:
• Increased, sustainable and adequate state funding for new and existing programs
that support life cycle, workforce and affordable housing, address homeownership
disparities, address foreclosure mitigation, address housing for families with children, and
support senior, transitional and emergency housing for the metro region;
2019 Legislative Policies
24
Housing & Economic Development
• A state match for local and regional housing trust fund investments and local
policies in support of affordable housing. State funds should be issued on a timeline that
works with a city's budget process;
Private sector funding for workforce housing;
• Housing programs that assist housing development, preservation and maintenance
of existing housing stock, including unsubsidized, naturally occurring affordable housing
that is affordable to residents throughout the low -to -moderate income range;
• State funded housing programs, including rental assistance, to help with rent
affordability;
• Housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in census blocks with
emerging or high concentrations of poverty, where the private market might not otherwise
invest, as a means of creating mixed -income communities and reconciling affordable
housing with community development goals;
• Continuing the policy of using the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's investment
earnings for housing programs;
• City input into state legislation and administrative policies regarding distribution of
tax credits and tax-exempt bonding;
• Exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the
development and production of affordable housing;
• Consideration of the use of state bond proceeds and other appropriations for land
banking, land trusts, and rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing;
• Programs that help avoid foreclosures, improve homeownership rates and reduce
racial disparities through homeownership assistance programs and counseling services,
including pre -purchasing counseling to improve financial wellness and inform homeowners
and potential homeowners of their rights, options and costs associated with owning a home;
• Preserving and expanding the state 4d low-income property tax program which
provides a property tax benefit to qualifying low-income rental properties;
0- An affordable housing tax credit to help spur construction and secure additional
private investment. This incentive could be used in conjunction with city, regional, or other
state incentives; and
• Maintaining existing municipal authority to establish a housing improvement area
(HIA). If the Legislature grants multi -jurisdictional entities the authority to create HIAs,
2019 Legislative Policies
25
Housing & Economic Development
creation of an HIA must require municipal approval.
3-H Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing
Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to
maintain and increase affordable and workforce housing. Providing working families access to
housing is an important piece to the economic vitality of the region.
Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels of
funding for affordable and workforce housing. Federal investment in affordable and workforce
housing will maintain and increase the supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as
make housing more affordable through rental assistance programs such as the Section 8 housing
choice voucher program.
In July 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a final
rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) with an aim to provide communities that
receive HUD funding with clear guidelines to meet their obligation under the Fair Housing Act
of 1968 to promote and reduce barriers to fair housing and equal opportunity. HUD has since
provided new guidance to comply with the AFFH rule.
Opportunity Zones is a community development program established by Congress in the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to encourage long-term investments in low-income urban and rural
communities nationwide. The Opportunity Zones program provides a tax incentive for investors
to re -invest their unrealized capital gains into Opportunity Funds that are dedicated to investing
into Opportunity Zones as designated by the chief executives of every state and territory in the
United States. The tax incentive is available for up to ten years.
As the chief executive of the state of Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton designated 128 census
tracts across the state as Opportunity Zones, but beyond the responsibility for this designation the
state does not have an additional role in the implementation of the Act. As the United States
Treasury Department has yet to release rules for Opportunity Zones, there are many unknowns
about the effects the Act will have on communities. It is anticipated that the Act may be a useful
tool in spurring development in low-income communities and could help with business
development and jobs. There are also questions about what impact the Act will have on the
residents that live and businesses that operate in these communities today. For example, while
development may have positive impacts such as increasing tax base or job opportunities, robust
development could have unintended consequences such as displacement of current residents and
businesses.
Metro Cities urges the federal government to seek regular input from communities, especially
from individuals and businesses within Opportunity Zones, regarding how the tool is being used,
whether the tool is encouraging new development opportunities, and how community members
who live in the Zones are impacted. The Federal Government should seek input from local
communities throughout the implementation of the rules and regulations and consider necessary
amendments and adjustments as needed in response to potential questions or concerns raised by
the communities whose residents, workers, and businesses will be experiencing the changes that
2019 Legislative Policies
26
Housing & Economic Development
ensue in the Zones.
The State of Minnesota should utilize community development resources to stimulate investment
in Opportunity Zones and adopt policies that ensure that local residents, workers and businesses
benefit from the investments.
Metro Cities supports the following:
• Preserving and increasing funding for the Community Development Block Grant
Program (CDBG) and the federal HOME program that are catalysts for creating
affordable housing;
• Preserving and increasing resources and incentives to sustain existing public
housing throughout the Metro Area;
• Maintaining the federal tax credit program to help spur construction and secure
additional private investment, including making the four percent Low Income Housing Tax
Credit a fixed rate as was done with the nine percent credit in 2015;
• Creating and implementing a more streamlined procedural method for local units of
government to participate in and access federal funding and services dealing with grants,
loans, and tax incentive programs for economic and community development efforts;
• Additional resources to assist communities to meet obligations to reduce barriers to
and promote fair housing and equal opportunity;
• Maintaining and increasing resources to Section 8 funding and to support incentives
for rental property owners to participate in the program; and
• Federal funding to provide short-term assistance for HRAs to facilitate the sale of
tax- exempt bonds.
3-1 Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk
Abandoned residential and commercial properties can harm communities when vacant buildings
result in reduced property values and increased crime. The additional public safety and code
enforcement costs of managing vacant properties are a financial strain on cities.
Metro Cities supports solutions to vacant and boarded properties that recognize:
and
Prevention is more cost effective than a cure;
The causes of this problem are many and varied, thus the solutions must be as well;
2019 Legislative Policies
27
Housing & Economic Development
• It is not simply a "city" problem so cities must not be expected to bear the bulk of
the burden of mitigation.
Further, Metro Cities supports:
Registration of vacant and boarded properties;
• Allowing cities to acquire vacant and boarded properties before deterioration and
vandalism result in unsalvageable structures, including providing financial tools such as
increasing eminent domain flexibility;
• Improvements to the cost assignment process to ensure that cities can recoup their
costs of managing vacant properties;
• Improving the ability of cities to recoup the increased public safety and enforcement
costs related to vacant properties;
• Improvement of the redemption process to provide increased notification to renters,
strengthen the ability of homeowners to retain their properties, and reduce the amount of
time a property is vacant;
Expedition of the tax forfeiture process;
• Increasing financial tools for neighborhood recovery efforts, including tax
increment financing; and
• Year-round notification by utility companies of properties not receiving utility
service.
3-J Housing Ordinance Enforcement
A Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling, Morris v. Sax, stated that provisions of the city of
Morris' rental housing code were invalid because there were subjects dealt with under the state
building code and the city was attempting to regulate these areas "differently from the state
building code." M.S. 16B.6s subdivision 1 states: "The state building code applies statewide and
supersedes the building code of any municipality. A municipality must not by ordinance or
through development agreement require building code provisions regulating components or
systems of any residential structure that are different from any provision of the state building
code."
Metro Cities supports the ability of cities to enforce all housing codes passed by a local
municipality to maintain its housing stock.
3-K Economic Development, Redevelopment and Workforce Readiness
2019 Legislative Policies
28
Housing & Economic Development
The economic viability of the metro area is enhanced by a broad array of economic development
tools that create infrastructure, revitalize previously developed property, provide incentives for
business development, support technological advances, support a trained workforce, and address
disparities in economic development and workforce development. It should be the goal of the
state to champion development and redevelopment by providing enough sustainable funding to
assure competitiveness in a global marketplace. The state should recognize the relationship
between housing and economic development. Economic development and redevelopment are not
mutually exclusive — some projects require a boost on both counts. The State of Minnesota
should recognize cities as the primary unit of government responsible for the implementation of
economic development, redevelopment policies and land use controls.
3-K (1) Economic Development
For purposes of this section, economic development is defined as a form of development that can
contain direct business assistance, infrastructure development, technical assistance and policy
support with the goal of sustainable job creation, job retention, appropriate state regulation or
classification, or to nurture new or retain existing industry in the state. The measure of return on
investment of public business subsidies should include the impact (positive or negative) of "spin-
off development" or business development that is ancillary and supportive of the primary
business.
A strength of the regional economy has been its economic diversity. GREATER MSP has
identified multiple industry clusters and sectors that employ a specialized, trained workforce and
support entrepreneurs in developing new businesses. Partnerships and collaborations among the
state and local levels of government, higher education and industry should continue to develop,
to commercialize new technologies and to support efforts to enhance the economic vitality of the
region.
While cities are the primary unit of local government responsible for the implementation of
economic development, counties have an interest in supporting local economic development
efforts. Any creation of a county CDA, EDA or HRA with economic development powers
should follow M.S. 469.1082 that requires a city to adopt a resolution electing to participate.
Cities can work with the public and private sectors to support the region's economic growth by
reducing barriers to economic participation by people of color.
Metro Cities supports state funded programs that support new and expanding businesses,
infrastructure development and public -private partnerships. This includes the Minnesota
Investment Fund, Job Creation Fund and Angel Tax Credit. Programs using statewide funding
should strive to award funds balanced between the metro region and greater Minnesota. Metro
Cities supports competitive funding for statewide grant programs such as the Minnesota
Investment Fund (MIF) as opposed to direct legislative appropriations for projects from
these funds. Metro Cities supports a percentage of MIF loan repayments to cities. The state
should provide administrative support and technical assistance to cities that administer these
programs. Applications for state MIF funds should allow a city to indicate support for a MIF
grant or a loan.
2019 Legislative Policies
29
Housing & Economic Development
Metro Cities supports economic tools that facilitate job growth without relying solely on
the property tax base; green job development and related innovation and
entrepreneurship; programs to support minority business start-ups; small business
financing tools including a state new markets tax credit program mirrored on the federal
program; tools to attract and retain data centers and other IT facilities; and maintaining
existing municipal authority to establish a special service district (SSD). Metro Cities
supports further study of allowing mixed -use buildings that have both commercial and
residential uses to be included in an SSD.
3-K (2) Redevelopment
Redevelopment involves the development of land that requires "predevelopment." The goal of
redevelopment is to facilitate the development of "pre -used" land, thereby leveling the playing
field between greenfield and brownfield sites so that a private sector entity can rationally choose
to locate on land that has already been used. The benefits of redevelopment include a decrease in
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), more efficient use of new or existing public infrastructure
(including public transit), ameliorated city costs due to public safety and code enforcement, and
other public goods that result when land is reused rather than abandoned and compact
development is encouraged.
Metro Cities supports increased funding from state and regional sources. The Metropolitan
Council's Livable Communities Act programs fund redevelopment activities that support
cleanup and tax base revitalization. Metro Cities supports allowing a maximum levy amount
for this program, as provided under law. Metro Cities supports increased and sustained
general fund and state bond funds for DEED -administered programs like the
Redevelopment Grant Program, dedicated to metropolitan area projects, innovative
Business Development Public Infrastructure grants, as well as increased, flexible and
sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup and Investigation Grant Program.
The expansion of transit service throughout the region brings opportunity for redevelopment and
transit oriented development (TOD). Metro Cities supports financing, regulatory tools and
increased flexibility in the use of TIF to nurture TOD. Metro Cities supports funding
Transit Improvement Areas (TIAs) and ensuring that the eligibility criteria encourage a
range of improvements and infrastructure and accommodate varying city circumstances
and needs.
Correcting and stabilizing polluted soils and former landfill sites allows cities to redevelop and
reuse properties. Metro Cities supports expansion of existing tools or development of new
funding mechanisms to correct unstable soils as well as city authority to redevelop land
previously used as landfills and dumps. If a city receives initial approval from a state
regulatory authority, a city's redevelopment project approval should be considered final.
Local governments and cities may choose to revitalize historic structures rather than construct
new buildings. Metro Cities supports extension of the sunset of the state income tax credit
and maintaining the federal tax credit for preservation of historic properties.
2019 Legislative Policies
30
Housing & Economic Development
Metro Cities supports state funding to allow cities and/or their development authorities to
assemble small properties so that business expansion sites will be ready for future
redevelopment.
3-K (3) Workforce Readiness
A trained workforce is important to a strong local, regional and state economy. Cities have an
interest in the availability of qualified workers and building a future workforce based on current
and future demographics, as part of their economic development efforts. Cities can work with the
public and private sectors to address workforce readiness to include issues such as addressing
racial disparities in achievement and employment gaps and the occupational gender gap. The
state has a role to prepare and train a qualified workforce through the secondary, vocational and
higher education systems and job training and retraining programs in the Department of
Employment and Economic Development, including youth employment programs.
Metro Cities supports:
• Increased funding for the Job Skills Partnership, youth employment programs and
other workforce training programs administered by the state that lead to jobs that provide
a living wage and benefits, and help address racial disparity gaps in employment;
• Innovative workforce programs and partnerships that foster workforce readiness
for a full range of jobs and careers, including skilled municipal jobs and current high
opportunity areas such as manufacturing and construction;
• Investments in programs that address the gender wage gap, including training for
women to enter nontraditional careers;
A payroll tax credit for job training programs that invest in employees; and
A city's authority to tie workforce requirements to local public finance assistance.
3-L Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) continues to be the primary tool available for local communities
to assist economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over time, statutory changes have
made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use. At the same time, federal and state
development and redevelopment resources have been steadily shrinking. The cumulative impact
of TIF restrictions, shrinking federal and state redevelopment resources and highly restrictive
eminent domain laws constrain cities' abilities to address problem properties, which leads to an
accelerated level of decline of developed cities in the metropolitan area. Thus, the only source of
revenue available to accomplish the scope of redevelopment necessary is the value created by the
redevelopment itself, or the "increment." Without the use of the increment, development will
either not occur or is unlikely to be optimal.
2019 Legislative Policies
31
Housing & Economic Development
Metro Cities urges the Legislature to:
• Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain or directly or
indirectly reduce the effectiveness of TIF;
• Not adopt any statutory language that would allow a county, school district or
special taxing district to opt out of a TIF district;
• Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District
criteria so that a Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated
parcels in addition to railroad property;
Expand the flexibility of TIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects;
• Amend MN Statutes to clarify that tax increment pooling limitations are calculated
on a cumulative basis;
Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects;
• Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and if warranted
provide cities with additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls;
Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit related TIF districts in order to
shape development and related improvements around transit stations but not require the
use of TIF districts to fund the construction or maintenance of the public transit line itself
unless a local community chooses to do so;
• Allow TIF eligibility expansion to innovative technological products, recognizing
that not only physical items create economic value;
• Support changes to TIF law that will facilitate the development of "regional
projects";
• Shift TIF redevelopment policy away from a focus on "blight" and "substandard"
to "functionally obsolete" or a focus on long range planning for a particular community,
reduction in greenhouse gases or other criteria more relevant to current needs;
• Encourage DEED to do an extensive cost -benefit analysis related to redevelopment,
including an analysis of the various funding mechanisms, and an analysis of where the cost
burden falls with each of the options compared to the distribution of the benefits of the
redevelopment project;
Support TIF for neighborhood recovery efforts in the wake of the foreclosure crisis;
Consider creating an inter -disciplinary TIF team to review local exception TIF
2019 Legislative Policies
32
Housing & Economic Development
proposals, using established criteria, and make recommendations to the legislature on their
passage;
• Encourage the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more efficient and
streamlined reporting process. There are an increasing number of noncompliance notices
that have overturned longstanding practices or limited statutorily defined terms. The
Legislature has not granted TIF rulemaking authority to the State Auditor and the audit
powers granted by statute are not an appropriate vehicle for making administrative or
legislative changes to TIF statutes. If the State Auditor is to exercise rulemaking authority,
the administrative power to do so must be granted explicitly by the Legislature. The audit
enforcement process does not create a level playing field for cities to challenge the
Auditor's interpretation of statutes. The Legislature should provide a process through
which to resolve disputes over TIF policy that is fair to all parties;
Clarify the use of TIF when a sale occurs after the closing of a district;
• Revise the substandard building test to simplify, resolve ambiguities and reduce
continued threat of litigation; and
• Amend TIF statutes to address, through extending districts or other mechanisms,
shortfalls related to declining market values during economic crises.
3-M Eminent Domain
Significant statutory restrictions on the use of eminent domain have resulted in higher public
costs for traditional public use projects like streets, parks, and sewers, and have all but restricted
the use of eminent domain for redevelopment to cases of extreme blight or contamination.
The proper operation and long term economic vitality of our cities is dependent on the ability of
a city, its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent. Reinvestment and
reinvention strategies can occasionally conflict with the priorities of individual residents or
business owners. Eminent domain is a critical tool in the reinvestment and reinvention process
and without it our cities may deteriorate to unprecedented levels before the public reacts.
Metro Cities strongly encourages the Governor and Legislature to revisit eminent domain laws to
allow local governments to address redevelopment problems before those conditions become
financially impossible to address. Specifically, Metro Cities supports:
Clarifying contamination standards;
• Developing different standards for redevelopment to include obsolete structures or
to reflect the deterioration conditions that currently exist in the metro area;
Allowing for the assembly of multiple parcels for redevelopment projects;
2019 Legislative Policies
33
Housing & Economic Development
• Modifying the public purpose definition under Chapter 117 to allow cities to more
expediently address properties that are vacant or abandoned in areas with high levels of
foreclosures, to address neighborhood stabilization and recovery;
• Providing for the ability to acquire land from "holdouts" who will now view a
publicly funded project as an opportunity for personal gain at taxpayer expense; i.e. allow
for negotiation using balanced appraisals for fair relocation costs;
Examining attorney fees and limit fees for attorneys representing a property owner;
• Allowing for relocation costs not to be paid if the city and property owner agree to a
sale contract;
A property owner's appraisal to be shared with the city prior to a sale agreement;
and
• Appropriately balanced awards of attorney fees and costs of litigation with the
outcome of the eminent domain proceeding.
3-N Community Reinvestment
Communities across the metropolitan region have aging residential and commercial structures
that need repair and reinvestment. Reinvestment prevents neighborhoods from falling into
disrepair, revitalizes communities and protects a city's tax base.
Metro Cities supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential
and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or
property tax deferrals.
Historically, the state has funded programs to promote reinvestment in communities, including
the "This Old House" program, that allowed owners of older homestead property to defer an
increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements to the home and "This Old
Shop" for owners of older commercial/industrial property that make improvements that increase
the property's market value.
3-0 Business Incentives Policy
Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the
Business Subsidy Act, as defined in M.S. 116J.993, but should look to technical changes that
would streamline both state and local processes and procedures. The Legislature should
distinguish between development incentives and redevelopment activities. In addition, in order to
ensure cohesive and comprehensive regulations, the legislature should limit regulation of
business incentives to the Business Subsidy Act.
Metro Cities supports additional legislation that includes tools to help enhance and
2019 Legislative Policies
34
Housing & Economic Development
facilitate economic development and job creation.
3-P Broadband Technology
Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs and
availability of traditional infrastructure - roads, rail and utilities - the 21 st century economy is
dependent on reliable, cost effective, high bandwidth communications capabilities. This includes
voice, video, data and other services delivered over cable, telephone, fiber-optic, wireless and
other platforms.
The state has increased its role in expanding broadband infrastructure across the state by funding
broadband access for residents and businesses. The Governor's Broadband Task Force regularly
recommends updates to state broadband speed goals and funding levels to expand statewide
broadband access. The Office of Broadband Development in the Department of Employment and
Economic Development supports the role of broadband in economic development. The Office
coordinates broadband mapping and administers state broadband grant funds.
Cities play a vital role in achieving significantly higher broadband speeds. Local units of
government are contributing to increasing broadband capacity and ensuring internet connectivity,
reliability, and availability. However, attempts have been made in Minnesota and other states to
restrict or stop cities from facilitating the deployment of broadband services or forming
partnerships with private sector companies to provide broadband services to unserved or
underserved residents or businesses. Restricting municipal authority is contrary to existing state
law on electric utility service, telecommunications, and economic development. Metro Cities
opposes the adoption of state policies that further restrict a city's ability to finance,
construct or operate broadband telecommunications networks.
Metro Cities supports:
• State policies and support programs that substantially increase speed and capacity
of broadband services statewide, including facilitating solutions at the local level. The state
should offer incentives to private sector service providers to respond to local or regional
needs and to collaborate with cities and other public entities to deploy broadband
infrastructure capable of delivering sufficient bandwidth and capacity to meet immediate
and future local needs as well as policies which seek to position Minnesota as a state of
choice for testing next -generation broadband;
• Metro eligibility for broadband funds, including increased capacity for areas with
existing levels of service;
• Municipal authority and encouragement of local governments to play a direct role
in providing broadband service. This includes repealing Minnesota Statute 237.19. The
state should clarify that cities have the authority to partner with private entities to finance
broadband infrastructure using city bonding authority;
2019 Legislative Policies
35
Housing & Economic Development
• Local authority to manage public rights -of -way, to zone, to collect compensation for
the use of public assets, or to work cooperatively with the private sector. Cities may
exercise local authority over zoning and land -use decisions for wireless service facilities;
and
• Public -private collaborations that support broadband infrastructure and services at
the local and regional level, including partnerships and cooperation in providing last -mile
connections.
3-Q City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development
Historically, cities have played a major role in environmental protection, particularly in water
quality. Through the construction and operation of wastewater treatment and storm water
management systems, cities are a leader in protecting the surface water of the state. In recent
years, increased emphasis has been placed on protecting ground water and removing
impairments from storm water. In addition, there is increased emphasis on city participation in
controlling our carbon footprint and in promoting green development.
Metro Cities supports public and private environmental protection efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and to further protect surface and ground water. Metro Cities
also supports "green" design and construction techniques to the extent that those
techniques have been thoroughly tested and are truly environmentally beneficial,
economically sustainable and represent sound building practices. Metro Cities supports
additional, feasible environmental protection with adequate funding and incentives to
comply.
Green jobs represent employment and entrepreneurial opportunities that are part of the green
economy, as defined in M.S. 116J.437, including the four industry sectors of green products,
renewable energy, green services and environmental conservation. Minnesota's green jobs
policies, strategies and investments need to lead to high quality jobs with good wages and
benefits, meeting current wage and labor laws.
3-R Impaired Waters
Metro Cities supports continued development of the metropolitan area in a manner that is
responsive to the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the
state and metro area. Since all types of properties are required to pay storm water fees,
Metro Cities opposes entity -specific exemptions from these fees. Metro Cities supports the
goals of the Clean Water Act and efforts at both the federal and state level to implement it.
Metro Cities supports continued funding of the framework established to improve the
region's ability to respond to market demands for development and redevelopment,
including dedicated funding for surface water impairment assessments, Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) development, storm water construction grants and wastewater
construction grants.
2019 Legislative Policies
36
Housing & Economic Development
Local units of government should not bear undue cost burdens associated with completed TMDL
reports. As recent TMDL reports show, non -point agricultural sources are producing more run
off pollution than urban areas at a rate of 13:1. Cities must not be required as primary entities for
funding the clean-up and protection of state and regional water resources. Benefits of efforts
must be proportional to the costs incurred and agricultural sources must be held responsible for
their share of costs.
2019 Legislative Policies
37
38
Metropolitan Agencies
4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance
The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to a majority of the state's population and
businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time, the
region faces significant challenges and opportunities. The responses to these opportunities and
challenges will determine the future success of the region and its competitiveness in the state,
national and world economies.
The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region, and
cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and service
delivery.
The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency, with regional and local
growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and implementation, and
the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function successfully, the Metropolitan
Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration with city governments.
The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities with
technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are responsible and
best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and service delivery. Any
additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council should be limited to specific
statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should not usurp or conflict with local roles
or processes, unless such changes have the consent of the region's cities.
Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the effective,
efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services and planning
throughout the metropolitan area.
Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning that can be
provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level than at the local level
by individual local units of government.
The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services and planning
and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues, and be required to provide
opportunities for city participation on Council advisory committees and task forces.
The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and implementation
around the regional development guide, policy plans, systems statements, and local
comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency, balance and Council adherence to its
core mission and functions. These processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies
and plans are released for comment and finalized.
2019 Legislative Policies
39
Metropolitan Agencies
4-13 Regional Governance Structure
Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor
with four-year, staggered terms for members to stabilize ideological shifts and provide for
continuity of knowledge on the Council, which is appropriate for a long-range planning
body. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the
Governor.
Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and
input by local officials. Metro Cities supports expanding the nominating committee from
seven to 13 members, with a majority of a 13-member committee being local elected
officials. Of the local officials appointed to a nominating committee, two thirds should be elected
city officials, appointed by Metro Cities.
Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees, with
committee representation from each quadrant of the region.
Metro Cities supports having the names of recommended nominees or other individuals
under consideration for appointment to the Council by the Governor to be made public at
least 21 days prior to final selection by the Governor, and a formal public comment period
before members are appointed to the Council.
Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have
demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit to meet
with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the
commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision -making. A
detailed position description outlining the required skills, time commitment and understanding of
regional and local issues and concerns should be clearly articulated and posted in advance of the
call for nominees.
4-C Comprehensive Analysis and Oversight of Metropolitan Council
Metro Cities supports the 2016 study of the Metropolitan Council's governance structure
conducted by the Citizens League, the recommendations of which are largely consistent
with Metro Cities' governance policies.
The metropolitan region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant
challenges for the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure.
Metro Cities supports an objective study of the Metropolitan Council's activities and services as
well as its geographical jurisdiction to ensure that the Metropolitan Council's services are
positioned to be effective and adequate in addressing the future needs of the region. Such work
must include the participation of local officials. The Metropolitan Council should also examine
its scope of services to determine their benefit and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods
of delivery to assure that services are provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region.
Metro Cities supports appropriate legislative oversight of the Metropolitan Council to
2019 Legislative Policies
40
Metropolitan Agencies
regularly review the Council's activities, and to provide transparency and accountability of
its functions and operations.
4-D Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund regional services and activities through a
combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The Council should set
user fees through an open process that includes public notices and public hearings. User fees
should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports effective and efficient public
services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to
ensure long-term service and fee stability. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services
or programs for which they are collected.
Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees to fund regional projects so
long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or
tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return.
4-E Regional Systems
Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and
recreational open space. The purpose of the regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's
authority over them is clearly outlined in state law. The Metropolitan Council must seek a
statutory change to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems.
Systems plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council should be specific in terms of size, location
and timing of regional investments to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning.
Systems plans should also clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for
consistency with regional systems.
Additional regional systems should be established only if there is a compelling metropolitan
problem or concern best addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the
existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and
established regional or state funding sources. These characteristics should be present in any new
regional system that might be established. Water supply and housing do not meet necessary
established criteria for regional systems. Any proposed additional system must have an
established regional or state funding source.
4-F Regional Water Supply Planning
The Metropolitan Council is statutorily authorized to carry out regional planning activities to
address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. A Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory
Committee that includes state agency representatives and local officials was concurrently
established to assist the Council in developing a master water supply plan that includes
recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and state governments, streamlining
and consolidating approval processes and recommending future planning and capital
2019 Legislative Policies
41
Metropolitan Agencies
investments. The Master Water Supply Plan serves as a framework for assisting and guiding
communities in their water supply planning, without usurping local decision -making processes.
Many cities also conduct their own analyses for use in water supply planning.
As the Metropolitan Council continues its assessment of the region's water supply and issues for
sustainability, it must work cooperatively with local policymakers and professional staff
throughout the region on an on -going structured basis to ensure a base of information for water
supply decision making that is sound, credible and verifiable, and considers local information,
data, cost -benefit analyses and projections before any policy recommendations are issued.
Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter -relationships of
wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional
regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Master Water Supply Plan. Further,
regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses between the
regional and local units of government.
Metro Cities supports Metropolitan Council planning activities to address regional water
supply needs and water planning activities as prescribed in statute. Metro Cities opposes
the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena.
Further, while Metro Cities supports regionally coordinated efforts to address water
supply issues in the metropolitan area, Metro Cities opposes the elevation of water supply
to "Regional System" status, or the assumption of Metropolitan Council control and
management of municipal water supply infrastructure.
Metro Cities supported 2015 law changes that expanded municipal representation on the
water supply advisory committee and eliminated the requirement that city comprehensive
plans be consistent with the regional water supply plan. These laws serve to strengthen input
and collaboration for water supply planning, and help to ensure sound scientific analyses and
models are developed before legislative solutions to these issues are considered. Metro Cities
supports the technical advisory committee to the MAWSAC that maximizes participation
by municipal officials.
Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal
water supply projects. Any fees or taxes for regional water supply planning activities must be
consistent with activities prescribed in M.S. 473. 1565, and support activities specifically within
the region.
4-G Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should:
• Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is
more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one
of the four system plans;
Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan
2019 Legislative Policies
42
Metropolitan Agencies
amendments and development applications;
• Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for
substantial impact on systems plans;
• Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but
not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan
Land Use Planning Act (LUPA);
• Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues.
When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Metropolitan
Council's systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that includes a
peer review. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a
city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Metropolitan Council's
systems plans or the plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city has made
legitimate, good faith efforts to meet Metropolitan Council requirements;
• Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control Agency,
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other stakeholders to identify
common ground and resolve conflicts between respective goals for flexible residential
development and achieving consistency with the Council's system plans and policies; and
• Require entities, such as private businesses, nonprofits, or local units of government,
among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be subject to the
same qualifications and/or regulations as the city.
4-H Comprehensive Planning Process
Metro Cities supports continuing efforts to examine the comprehensive planning process to
make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient and avoids excessive cost burdens or
duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by municipalities in the planning
process. Metro Cities supports resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of
the comprehensive planning process, including planning grants and technical assistance.
Metro Cities supports funding and other resources from the Metropolitan Council for the
preparation of comprehensive plan updates, including grant funding. Grants and other
resources should be provided to all eligible communities through a formula that is equitable, and
recognizes varying city needs and capacities.
4-1 Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates to the Metropolitan Council every 10
years. A city's comprehensive plan represents a community's vision of how the city should grow
and develop or redevelop, ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and
services, protect natural areas and meet other community objectives.
2019 Legislative Policies
43
Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities recognizes the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the release of
census data. However, the comprehensive plan process is expensive, time consuming and labor
intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of comprehensive plans should not be
altered solely to better align with census data. If sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for
the next round of comprehensive plans to be changed or expedited, cities should be provided
with financial resources to assist them in preparing the next round of plans.
Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning because of
regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive planning
schedule, Metro Cities' supports financial and other resources to assist cities in preparing and
incorporating policy changes in local planning efforts.
Metro Cities supports a 10-year time frame for comprehensive plan update submissions.
4-J Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full authority to
approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs of their own
community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities' comprehensive plans,
should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other
governmental agency.
Metro Cities supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions and opposes the
creation of non -local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions.
4-K Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecast prepared by the Metropolitan Council projects a
population of 3,738,047 people by 2040.
Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that
integrate transportation, housing, parks, open space and economic development that will result in
a region better equipped to manage population growth, to provide a high quality of life for a
growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved environmental
health.
In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate state and
regional financial resources and incentives, and maximum flexibility around local planning
decisions are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in managing growth while
being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and needs of metropolitan cities, and
should encourage sub -regional cooperation and coordination.
In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life:
2019 Legislative Policies
44
Metropolitan Agencies
• Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and
development/reinvestment;
Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and
• New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second -ring
suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment.
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional
policies:
• The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly in the
areas of transportation and transit, community reinvestment, affordable housing development,
and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not
adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the
Metropolitan Council;
• The Metropolitan Council and Legislature must work to pursue levels of state and federal
transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit needs in the
metropolitan area;
• The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to
work with cities in a collaborative, incentives -based manner;
• The Metropolitan Council must recognize the various needs and capacities of its many
partners, including but not limited to cities, counties, economic development authorities and
nonprofit organizations, and its policies must be balanced and flexible in their approach;
• Metropolitan counties, adjacent counties and school districts must be brought more
thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of facilities and services such as
county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth; and
• Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region extends
beyond the traditional seven -county area and the need to work collaboratively with adjacent
counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. The region faces
environmental, transportation, and land use issues that cannot be solved by the seven -county
metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an analysis to determine the impacts of
Metropolitan Council's growth management policies and infrastructure investments on the
growth and development of the collar counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar
counties on the metropolitan area.
Metro Cities opposes statutory or other regulatory changes that interfere with established
regional and local processes to manage growth in the metropolitan region, including
regional systems plans, systems statements, and local comprehensive plans. Such changes
erode local planning authority as well as the efficient provision of regional infrastructure,
disregard established public processes, and create different guidelines for communities that may
2019 Legislative Policies
45
Metropolitan Agencies
result in financial, environmental and other impacts on surrounding communities.
4-L Natural Resource Protection
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an
inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for providing local
communities with additional information and technical assistance. The state and region play
significant roles in the protection of natural resources. Any steps taken by the state or
Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that:
• The protection of natural resources is significant to a multi -county area that is home to
more than 50 percent of the state's population and a travel destination for many more. Given the
limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders,
neither the region nor individual metropolitan communities would be well served by assuming
primary responsibility for financing and protecting these resources;
• The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRUA) is not a
regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the
Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act;
• The protection of natural resources should be balanced with the need to accommodate
growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable
housing and provide transportation and transit connections; and
• Decisions about the zoning or land use designations, either within or outside a public
park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local
units of government.
The Metropolitan Council's role with respect to climate change, as identified in the 2040
regional development guide, should be focused on the stewardship of its internal operations
(wastewater, transit) and working collaboratively with local governments to provide information,
best practices, technical assistance and incentives around responses to climate change.
Metro Cities urges the Legislature and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial
assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources.
4-M Inflow and Infiltration (1/1)
The Metropolitan Council has identified a majority of sewered communities in the metropolitan
region to be contributing excessive inflow and infiltration into the regional wastewater system or
to be on the threshold of contributing excessive inflow and infiltration. Inflow and infiltration are
terms for the ways that clear water (ground and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes
and gets treated, unnecessarily, at regional wastewater plants. The number of identified
communities is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area
can be affected.
2019 Legislative Policies
46
Metropolitan Agencies
The Metropolitan Council establishes a surcharge on cities determined to be contributing
unacceptable amounts of I/I into the wastewater system. The charge is waived when cities meet
certain parameters through local mitigation efforts.
Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because of its potential environmental
and public health impacts, because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater
treatment systems and because excessive I/I in one city can affect development capacity of
another. However, there is the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs in their
ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive VI.
Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program and supports continued reviews of the
methodology used to measure excess I/I to ensure that the methodology appropriately normalizes
for precipitation variability and the Council's work with cities on community specific issues
around I/I.
Metro Cities supports state financial assistance for Metro Area I/I mitigation through
future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation and encourages the
Metropolitan Council to partner in support of such appropriations. Metro Cities also
supports resources, including identified best practices, information on model ordinances,
public education and outreach, and other tools, to local governments to address
inflow/infiltration mitigation for private properties.
Metro Cities recognizes the recommendations of a 2016 Inflow/Infiltration Task Force that
support considering the use of a portion of the regional wastewater charge for private property
inflow/infiltration mitigation. Any proposal to utilize the wastewater fee for this purpose must
include the opportunity for local officials to review and comment on specific proposals.
Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area
cities for mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection
systems.
4-N Sewer Availability Charge (SAC)
Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, transparency, simplification
and lower rates.
Metro Cities supports principles for SAC that include program transparency and
simplicity, equity for all served communities and between current and future users,
support for cities' sewer fee capacities, administrative reasonableness, and weighing any
program uses for specific goals with the impacts to the program's equity, transparency and
simplicity. As such, Metro Cities opposes the use of the SAC mechanism to subsidize and/or
incent specific Metropolitan Council goals and objectives.
Metro Cities supports modifications to the SAC program recommended by a 2018 SAC
Task Force and adopted by the Metropolitan Council to simplify the SAC determination
2019 Legislative Policies
47
Metropolitan Agencies
process by using gross rather than net square feet in making determinations, combining
use categories, adjusting the grandfather credit date and not requiring a new SAC
determination for business remodels that do not change the use of the property. These
changes are intended to help simplify the SAC program for users, and to reduce incidents of
"surprise" SAC charges.
Metro Cities supports current SAC policy that enhances flexibility in the SAC credit
structure for redevelopment purposes, and supports continued evaluation of SAC fees to
determine if they hinder redevelopment.
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council providing details on how any changes to
the SAC rate are determined. Metro Cities supports a periodic review of MCES' customer
service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and transparent to communities,
businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports continued outreach by MCES to users of
the SAC program to promote knowledge and understanding of SAC charges and policies.
Any modifications to the SAC program or structure should be considered only with the
participation and input of local officials in the metropolitan region.
Metro Cities supports a "growth pays for growth" approach to SAC. If state statutes are
modified to establish a "growth pays for growth" method for SAC, the Metropolitan Council
should convene a group of local officials to identify any technical changes necessary for
implementing the new structure.
Metro Cities supports allowing the Council to utilize the SAC `transfer' mechanism
provided for in state statute when the SAC reserve fund is inadequate to meet debt service
obligations. Any use of the transfer mechanism must be done so within parameters prescribed by
state law and with appropriate notification and processes to allow local official input and should
include a timely `shift back' of any transferred funds from the wastewater fund to the SAC
reserve fund. Efforts should be made to avoid increasing the municipal wastewater charge in use
of the transfer mechanism.
4-0 Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven -county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and the
state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and
improvement of these parks in a manner that is equitable with funding for state parks. State
funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional
parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails should be balanced between metro and greater
Minnesota.
Metro Cities supports state funding for regional parks and trails that is fair, creates a
balance of investment across the state, and meets the needs of the region.
4-P Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) provides a voluntary, incentive -based approach to
2019 Legislative Policies
48
Metropolitan Agencies
affordable housing development, tax base revitalization, job growth and preservation, brownfield
clean up and mixed -use, transit -friendly development, and redevelopment. Metro Cities
strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which is widely accepted and utilized
by local communities. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA program, administered by the
Metropolitan Council, has generated billions of dollars of private and public investment, created
thousands of jobs and added thousands of affordable housing units in the region.
Metro Cities supports the ongoing monitoring of the LCA programs and any necessary
statutory changes to ensure that the LCA program criteria are flexible and promote the
participation of all participating communities, and to ensure that all metropolitan area
cities are eligible to participate in the Livable Communities Demonstration Account
(LCDA).
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the LCDA
to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or
market proven in the location, in order to support important development and
redevelopment goals. Metro Cities supports the findings of a recent local -official working
group that identified the need for the Metropolitan Council to expand its outreach to
communities on the LCA programs and to continue efforts to ensure that LCA criteria are
sufficiently flexible to meet the range of identified program objectives.
Metro Cities supports the statutory goals and criteria established for the Livable
Communities Act and opposes any changes to LCA programs that constrain flexibility
around statutory goals, program requirements and criteria.
Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Act programs and the
transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages among
the goals, municipal objectives, and Met Council system objectives.
Metro Cities supports the use of LCA funds for projects in transit improvement areas, as
defined in statute, if funding levels for general LCA programs are adequate to meet
program goals and the program remains accessible to participating communities.
Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering administrative program
costs. Remaining interest earnings should be considered part of LCA funds and used to fund
grants from established LCA accounts per established funding criteria.
4-Q Density
Metro Cities recognizes the need for a density policy, including minimum density requirements,
that allows the Metropolitan Council to effectively plan for and deliver cost-efficient regional
infrastructure and services. Regional density requirements must recognize that local decisions,
needs and priorities vary, and that requirements must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate
2019 Legislative Policies
49
Metropolitan Agencies
local circumstances as well as the effect of market trends on local development and
redevelopment activity.
The Metropolitan Council asks cities to plan for achieving minimum average net densities across
all areas identified for new growth, development or redevelopment. Because each community is
different, how and where density is guided is determined by the local unit of government.
Regional density requirements should use minimum average net densities. Metro Cities opposes
parcel -specific density requirements as such requirements are contrary to the need for
local flexibility in a regional policy.
Any regional density policy must use local data and local development patterns and must
accommodate local physical and land use constraints such as, but not limited to, wetlands, public
open space, trees, water bodies and rights -of -way, and any corresponding federal and state
regulations imposed on local governments when computing net densities.
The Metropolitan Council must coordinate with local governments in establishing or revising
regional density requirements and should ensure that regional density and plat monitoring reports
comprehensively reflect local densities and land uses.
2019 Legislative Policies
50
Transportation
Transportation Policies and Funding Introduction
Metro Cities supports a comprehensive transportation system as a vital component in
planning for and meeting the physical, social and economic needs of the state and
metropolitan region.
A comprehensive transportation system includes streets and bridges, transit, and multi -modal
solutions that work cohesively to best meet state, regional and local transportation needs.
Adequate and stable sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and
maintenance of a high quality, efficient and safe transportation system that meets these needs and
that will position the state and region to be economically competitive in the years ahead. Failure
to maintain a functional transportation system will have adverse effects on the state's ability to
attract and retain businesses and create jobs.
Transportation funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local
policymakers so that the transportation system can meet the needs of the state's residents and
businesses as well as projected population growth. Funding and planning for regional and
statewide systems must be coordinated at the federal, state, regional and local levels to optimally
achieve long-term needs and goals.
5-A Road and Bridge Funding
Under current financing structures that rely primarily on local property taxes and fees as well as
the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) receipts, road and bridge needs in the metropolitan region
continue to be underfunded. Metro Cities strongly supports stable, sufficient and sustainable
statewide transportation funding and expanded local tools to meet the transportation
system needs of the region and local municipal systems. Consideration should be given to
using new, expanded and existing resources to meet these needs.
In addition, cities lack adequate tools and resources for the maintenance and improvement of
municipal street systems, with resources restricted to property taxes and special assessments. It is
imperative that alternative revenue generating authority be granted to municipalities and that
state resources be made available for this purpose to aid local communities and relieve the
burden on the property tax system. Metro Cities supports Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS)
funding. MSAS provides an important but limited revenue source that assists eligible cities with
street infrastructure needs and is limited to twenty percent of a city's street system.
Metro Cities supports state funding to assist cities over -burdened by cost participation
responsibilities from improvement projects on the state's arterial system and county state
aid highway (CSAH) systems.
2019 Legislative Policies
51
Transportation
Metro Cities supports state funding for state highway projects, including congestion,
bottleneck and safety improvements. Metro Cities also supports state financial assistance,
as well as innovations in design and construction, to offset the impacts of regional
transportation construction projects on businesses.
Metro Cities opposes statutory changes restricting the use of local funds for transportation
projects. Metro Cities opposes restrictions on aesthetic related components of
transportation projects, as these components often provide important safety and other
benefits to projects.
Metro Cities supports further research into the policy implications for electric and
autonomous vehicles on roadways, transit, and other components of transportation
systems. Metro Cities encourages the state to study the impact of electric and autonomous
vehicles on transportation related funding and policies.
5-13 Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi -modal regional transit system as part of a
comprehensive transportation strategy that serves all users, including commuters and the transit
dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lanes, High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, a network of bike and pedestrian trails, Bus Rapid
Transit, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit, streetcars,
and commuter rail corridors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and
entertainment centers. The system should be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that
routes of service correspond to the region's changing travel patterns.
Current congestion levels and forecasted population growth require a stable, reliable and
growing source of revenue for transit construction and operations so that our metropolitan region
can meet its transportation needs to remain economically competitive. Metro Cities supports an
effective, efficient and comprehensive regional transit system as an invaluable component
in meeting the multimodal transportation needs of the metropolitan region and to the
region's economic vibrancy and quality of life. Metro Cities recognizes that transit service
connects residents to jobs, schools, healthcare and activity centers. Transit access and service
frequency levels should recognize the role of public transit in addressing equity, including but
not limited to racial and economic disparities, people with disabilities and the elderly. Metro
Cities supports strategic expansion of the regional transit system.
Metro Cities supports a regional governance structure that can ensure a measurably
reliable and efficient system that recognizes the diverse transit needs of our region and
addresses the funding needs for all components of the system.
Metro Cities recognizes the need for flexibility in transit systems for cities that border the edges
of the seven -county metropolitan area to ensure users can get to destinations outside of the
seven -county area. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to coordinate with collar
counties so that riders can get to and from destinations beyond the boundaries of the region.
2019 Legislative Policies
52
Transportation
5-C Transit Financing
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a comprehensive regional transit system that is
expanding to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Shifting demographics in the
metropolitan region will mean increased demand for transit in areas with and without current
transit service. Metro Cities supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund operating
and capital expenses for all regional transit providers and Metro Mobility at a level
sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital transit needs of the region and to
expand the system to areas that currently have insufficient transit options. MVST revenue
projections are unpredictable, and the Legislature has repeatedly reduced general fund support
for Metro Transit. Thus, regional transit providers continue to operate at a funding deficit.
Operating subsidies necessary to support a regional system should come from regional and
statewide funding sources and not local property taxpayers. In addition, capital costs for the
expansion of regional transit system should be supported through state and regional sources, and
not the sole responsibility of local units of government. Metro Cities continues to support an
advisory role for municipal officials in decisions associated with local transit projects.
5-D Street Improvement Districts
Funding sources for local transportation projects are limited to the use of Municipal State Aid
Street Program (MSAS), property taxes and special assessments. In addition, cities under 5,000
in population are not eligible for MSA. With increasing pressures on city budgets and limited
tools and resources, cities are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain aging streets.
Street improvement districts allow cities in developed and developing areas to fund new
construction as well as reconstruction and maintenance efforts.
The street improvement district is designed to allow cities, through a fair and objective fee
structure, to create a district or districts within the city in which fees are raised on properties in
the district and spent within the boundaries of the district. Street improvement districts would
also aid cities under 5,000 with an alternative to the property tax system and special assessments.
Metro Cities supports the authority of local units of government to establish street
improvement districts. Metro Cities also supports changes to special assessment laws to
make assessing state-owned property a more predictable process with uniformity in the
payment of assessments across the state.
5-E Highway Turnbacks & Funding
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than through significant property tax increases, to
absorb additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal
turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks.
Metro Cities supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads (M.S. 161.16, Subd.
4), on a phased basis using functional classifications and other appropriate criteria subject
2019 Legislative Policies
53
Transportation
to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and
continued maintenance.
Metro Cities does not support the wholesale turnback of county or state roads without the
consent of municipality and the total cost, agreed to by the municipality, being reimbursed
to the city in a timely manner.
5-F 113C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) was developed to meet federal requirements,
designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for a continuous,
comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds
among metropolitan area projects. Input by local officials into the planning and prioritization of
transportation investments in the region is a vital component of these processes.
Metro Cities supports continuation of the TAB with a majority of locally elected municipal
officials as members and participating in the process.
5-G Electronic Imaging for Enforcement of Traffic Laws
Enforcement of traffic laws with cameras and other motions imaging technology has been
demonstrated to improve driver compliance and safety.
Metro Cities supports local law enforcement agencies having the authority to use such
technology, including photos and videos, to enforce traffic laws.
5-H Transportation Network Companies and Alternative Transportation Modes
The introduction of transportation network companies (TNC) such as Lyft and Uber, vehicle
sharing and other wheeled transportation modes such as bicycles and scooters, require the need
for local officials to determine licensing and inspection requirements for these modes, and to
address issues concerning management over public rights -of -way. Cities have the authority to
license rideshare companies, inspect vehicles, license drivers and regulate access to sidewalks
and streets.
Metro Cities supports the ability of local officials to regulate these transportation modes.
Emerging and future transportation technologies have potentially significant implications for
local public safety and local public service levels, the needs and impacts of which vary by
community.
5-1 Airport Noise Mitigation
Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airports are significantly
impacted by noise, traffic and other numerous expansion -related issues:
2019 Legislative Policies
54
Transportation
• Metro Cities supports the broad goal of providing MSP-impacted communities
greater representation on the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Metro Cities
wants to encourage continued communication between the MAC commissioners and the cities
they represent. Balancing the needs of MAC, the business community and airport host cities and
their residents requires open communication, planning and coordination. Cities must be viewed
as partners with the MAC in resolving the differences that arise out of airport projects and the
development of adjacent parcels. Regular contact between the MAC and cities throughout the
project proposal process will enhance communication and problem solving. The MAC should
provide full funding for noise mitigation for all structures in communities impacted by flights in
and out of MSP; and
• Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures and the work of
the Noise Oversight Committee to minimize the impacts of MAC operated facilities on
neighboring communities. The MAC should determine the design and geographic reach of
these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities and
concerns of impacted cities and their residents. The MAC should provide full funding for noise
mitigation for all structures in communities impacted by flights in and out of MSP.
5-J Funding for Non -Municipal State Aid (MSAS) City Streets
Cities under 5,000 in population do not directly receive any non -property tax funds for collector
and arterial streets. Cities over 5,000 residents have limited eligibility for dedicated Highway
User Tax Distribution Fund dollars, which are capped by the state constitution as being available
for up to twenty percent of streets. Current County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distributions to
metropolitan counties are inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan
area. Possible funding sources include the five -percent set -aside account in the Highway User
Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts, street improvement districts,
and/or state general funds.
The 2015 Legislature created a Small Cities Assistance Account that is distributed through a
formula to cities with populations under 5,000. While the account will remain in statute, future
appropriations will have to be appropriated by future legislatures.
Cities need long-term, stable, funding for street improvements and maintenance. Metro Cities
supports additional resources and flexible policies to meet local infrastructure needs and
increased demands on city streets. Metro Cities also supports sustainable state funding
sources for non-MSAS city streets, including funding for the Small Cities Assistance
Account as well as support for the creation and funding of a Large Cities Assistance
Account.
5-K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
Significant resource needs remain in the metro area CSAH system. Revenues provided by the
Legislature for the CSAH system have resulted in a higher number of projects being completed,
2019 Legislative Policies
55
Transportation
however, greater pressure is being placed on municipalities to participate in cost sharing
activities, encumbering an already over -burdened local funding system. When the alternative is
not building or maintaining roads, cities bear not only the costs of their local systems but also
pay upward of fifty percent of county road projects. Metro Cities supports special or
additional funding for cities that have burdens of additional cost participation in projects
involving county roads.
CSAH eligible roads were designated by county engineers in 1956 and although only 10 percent
of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly 50 percent of the vehicle miles
traveled. The CSAH formula passed by the Legislature in 2008 increased the amount of CSAH
funding for the metropolitan area from 18 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2011. The formula
helps to better account for needs in the metropolitan region, but is only the first step in
addressing needs for additional resources for the region.
Metro Cities supports a new CSAH formula more equitably designed to fund the needs of
our metropolitan region.
5-L Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
State statutes direct the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to submit detailed
plans, with city cost estimates, at a point one -and -a -half to two years prior to bid letting, at which
time public hearings are held for community input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested
changes, it may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half
months and the results of the appeals board are binding on both the city and MnDOT.
Metro Cities supports the municipal consent process, and opposes changes to weaken
municipal consent or adding another level of government to the consent process. Metro
Cities opposes changes to current statutes that would allow MnDOT to disregard the
appeals board ruling for state trunk highways. Such a change would significantly minimize
MnDOT's need to negotiate in good faith with cities for appropriate project access and alignment
and would render the public hearing and appeals process meaningless. Metro Cities also
opposes the elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal process for these
reasons.
5-M Plat Authority
Current law grants counties review and comment authority for access and drainage issues for city
plats abutting county roads.
Metro Cities opposes any statutory change that would grant counties veto power or that
would shorten the 120-day review and permit process time.
5-N MnDOT Maintenance Budget
The state has failed in its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by
2019 Legislative Policies
56
Transportation
requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of maintaining major state roads.
MnDOT should be required to meet standards adopted by cities through local ordinances, or
reimburse cities for labor, equipment and material used on the state's behalf to improve public
safety or meet local standards. Furthermore, if a city performs maintenance, the city should be
fully reimbursed.
Metro Cities supports MnDOT taking full responsibility for maintaining state-owned
infrastructure and property, including, but not limited to, sound walls and right of way,
within city limits. Metro Cities supports cooperative agreements between cities and
MnDOT, which have proven to be effective in other parts of the state.
5-0 Transit Taxing District
The transit taxing district, which funds the capital cost of transit service in the Metropolitan Area
through the property tax system, is inequitable. Because the boundaries of the transit taxing
district do not correspond with any rational service line nor is being within the boundaries a
guarantee to receive service, cities within and outside of the taxing district are contributing
unequally to the transit service in the Metropolitan Area. This inequity should be corrected.
Metro Cities supports a stable revenue source to fund both the capital and operating costs
for transit at the Metropolitan Council. However, Metro Cities does not support the
expansion of the transit taxing district without a corresponding increase in service and an
overall increase in operational funds. To do so would create additional property taxes
without a corresponding benefit.
5-P Complete Streets
A complete street may include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus
lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and safe crossing
opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel
lanes and more.
A complete street in a rural area will differ from a complete street in a highly urban area, but
both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road.
Metro Cities supports options in state design guidelines for complete streets that would give
cities greater flexibility to:
• Safely accommodate all modes of travel;
• Lower traveling speeds on local streets;
• Address city infrastructure needs; and
2019 Legislative Policies
57
Transportation
• Ensure livability in the appropriate context for each city.
Metro Cities opposes state -imposed mandates that would increase street infrastructure
improvement costs in locations and instances where providing access for alternative modes
including cycling and walking are deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as determined by
local jurisdictions.
2019 Legislative Policies
58
Committee Rosters
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
Patrick Trudgeon (Chair), City Manager, Roseville
Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Senior Project Coordinator, Metropolitan Council
Gary Carlson, IGR Director, League of MN Cities
Heather Corcoran, IGR Member Relations Coordinator, League of MN Cities
Bill Coughlin, Councilmember, Burnsville
Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator, Andover
Lori Economy-Scholler, Chief Financial Officer, Bloomington
LaTonia Green, Finance Director, Brooklyn Park
Dana Hardie, Administrative Services Director, Burnsville
Lisa Herbert, Finance Director, Rogers
Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director, Plymouth
Judy Johnson, Councilmember, Plymouth
Merrill King, Finance Director, Minnetonka
Tom Lawell, City Administrator, Apple Valley
Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Dean Lotter, City Manager, New Brighton
Kristi Luger, City Manager, Excelsior
Anne Mavity, Councilmember, St. Louis Park
Madeline Mitchell, Budget Analyst, St. Paul
Noel Nix, Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Director
Candy Petersen, Councilmember, North St. Paul
Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis
Steven Stahmer, City Administrator, Rogers
Matt Stemwedel, City Manager, Coon Rapids
Jay Stroebel, City Manager, Brooklyn Park
ThaoMee Xiong, Intergovernmental Relations Director, St. Paul
2019 Legislative Policies
59
Committee Rosters
Housing & Economic Development
Bryan Hartman (Chair), HRA Program Manager, Bloomington
Patty Acomb, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Myron Bailey, Mayor, Cottage Grove
Karl Batalden, Housing & Economic Development Coordinator, Woodbury
Ryan Baumtrog, Assistant Commissioner of Policy and Community Development, Housing
Finance Agency
Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Senior Project Coordinator, Metropolitan Council
Connie Buesgens, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Heather Corcoran, IGR Member Relations Coordinator, League of MN Cities
Nathan Coulter, Councilmember, Bloomington
Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market
Molly Cummings, Mayor, Hopkins
Darielle Dannen, Government Relations Director, DEED
Sue Denkinger, Councilmember, Shoreview
Jenni Faulkner, Community Development Director, Burnsville
Jason Gadd, Councilmember, Hopkins
Ben Gozola, Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development, New Brighton
Shannon Guernsey, Executive Director, MN NAHRO
Janice Gundlach, Planning Director, New Brighton
Eric Anthony Johnson, Community Development Director, Bloomington
Judy Johnson, Councilmember, Plymouth
Steve Juetten, Community Development Director, Plymouth
Irene Kao, Intergovernmental Relations Counsel, League of MN Cities
Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Brad Martens, City Administrator, Corcoran
Patrick Martin, Councilmember, Bloomington
Anne Mavity, Councilmember, St. Louis Park
Melanie Mesko Lee, City Administrator, Hastings
Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager, Edina
Noel Nix, Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Director
Rebecca Noecker, Councilmember, St. Paul
Bruce Nordquist, Community Development Director, Apple Valley
Loren Olson, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Margaret Rog, Councilmember, St. Louis Park
Dan Ryan, Councilmember, Brooklyn Center
Cara Schulz, Councilmember, Burnsville
Jonathan Stanley, Housing and Community Services Manager, Eden Prairie
Bob Streetar, Community Development Director, Oakdale
Julie Wischnack, Community Development Director, Minnetonka
Barb Wolff, Community Development Office Supervisor, Bloomington
ThaoMee Xiong, Intergovernmental Relations Director, St. Paul
Laura Ziegler, IGR Liaison, League of MN Cities
2019 Legislative Policies
60
Committee Rosters
Metropolitan Agencies
Susan Arntz (Chair), City Administrator, Waconia
Myron Bailey, Mayor, Cottage Grove
Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Senior Project Coordinator, Metropolitan Council
Deb Calvert, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator, Andover
Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Metropolitan Council
Jerry Faust, Mayor, St. Anthony Village
Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley
Gary Hansen, Councilmember, Eagan
Dana Hardie, Administrative Services Director, Burnsville
Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor, Burnsville
Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Devin Massopust, Assistant City Manager, New Brighton
Tim McNeil, Mayor, Dayton
Noel Nix, Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Director
Loren Olson, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Gene Ranieri, Intergovernmental Relations Director, Minneapolis
Dan Ryan, Councilmember, Brooklyn Center
ThaoMee Xiong, Intergovernmental Relations Director, St. Paul
Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator, Mounds View
2019 Legislative Policies
61
Committee Rosters
Transportation & General Government
Jason Gadd (Chair), Councilmember, Hopkins
Susan Arntz, City Administrator, Waconia
Geralyn Barone, City Manager, Minnetonka
Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Brooke Bordson, Senior Project Coordinator, Metropolitan Council
Connie Buesgens, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Maria Carillo-Perez, Management Assistant, St. Louis Park
Heather Corcoran, IGR Member Relations Coordinator, League of MN Cities
Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market
Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Metropolitan Council
Robert Ellis, Public Works Director, Eden Prairie
Steve Fletcher, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Bruce Gorecki, Councilmember, Rogers
Charles Grawe, Assistant City Administrator, Apple Valley
Mary Hamann -Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
Gary Hansen, Councilmember, Eagan
Chris Hartzell, City Engineer, South St. Paul
Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director, Blaine
Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence
Irene Kao, Intergovernmental Relations Counsel, League of MN Cities
Dan Kealey, Councilmember, Burnsville
Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Ann Lindstrom, Intergovernmental Relations Representative, League of MN Cities
Mark Maloney, Public Works Director, Shoreview
Tom McCarty, City Administrator, Stillwater
Mary McComber, Mayor, Oak Park Heights
Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Mendota Heights
Andi Moffatt, Councilmember, Lauderdale
Heidi Nelson, City Administrator, Maple Grove
Noel Nix, Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Director
Loren Olson, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Ryan Peterson, Public Works Director, Burnsville
Katie Rodriguez, Councilmember, Metropolitan Council
Dan Ruiz, Operations and Maintenance Director, Brooklyn Park
Dan Ryan, Councilmember, Brooklyn Center
Craig Schlichting, Community Assets and Development Director, New Brighton
Nora Slawik, Mayor, Maplewood
Michael Thompson, Public Works Director, Plymouth
George Tourville, Mayor, Inver Grove Heights
Kevin Watson, City Administrator, Vadnais Heights
ThaoMee Xiong, Intergovernmental Relations Director, St. Paul
Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator, Mounds View
2019 Legislative Policies
62