HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08February 1, 2012 Item No.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
2012 LEGISLATIVE POLICY PRIORITIES
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve the City of Lakeville
2012 Legislative Policy Priorities.
Passage of this motion will result in the City publicly stating their position on a variety of
state and local legislative issues.
Overview
As the 2012 Minnesota State Legislature gets underway, there will be many legislative
initiatives and bills considered. The adoption of legislative priorities is intended to portray
the City's positions on a variety of issues and to communicate to Lakeville's residents,
legislators, county and state officials, lobbying organizations and other interested parties
Lakeville's position on a variety of significant legislative topics.
Attached is a copy of the City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities as reviewed at
the January 23rd City Council work session. The policies are divided into five categories
including municipal revenue and taxation, transportation, housing, economic development
and general legislation.
Primary Issues to Consider
How will the City Council and staff promote the City's positions as stated in the
policies?
Members of the City Council and staff will continue to be actively involved at the state
and local level attending meetings, discussing the policies and educating individuals
and groups about Lakeville's various legislative priorities. In addition, copies of the
legislative priorities will be provided to State and Federal representatives.
Supporting Information
• City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities.
l'
) All G. Kuennen, AICP
Associate Planner
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: YIN Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
City of Lakeville
Fig
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
City of Lakeville
2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
Municipal Revenue & Taxation ..................................... ............................... 3
A. Levy Limits
B. Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
Transportation........................................................... ............................... 5
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District
B. Transportation System Maintenance Funding
C. Public Infrastructure Utilities
D. Relieve Congestion Along 1 -35 through Lakeville
E. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor
Ili. Economic Development ............................................... ............................... 8
A. Tax Increment Financing
B. State Development Programs
IV. Housing ..................................................................... ..............................8
A. City Role in Housing
B. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
C. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements
V. General Legislation ...................................................... .............................10
A. Administrative Fines
B. Wine in Grocery
C. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests
D. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers
E. Mandates & Local Authority
F. Elected Metropolitan Council
G. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas
Page 2/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation
A. Levy Limits
Position The City of Lakeville strongly opposes levy limits and other forms of levy
restrictions imposed upon local governments.
Background: Lakeville believes the best decisions for local matters, including
levels of property taxation, are best made by locally elected officials. The
imposition of broad State mandates such as levy limits, "taxpayer's bill of rights ",
valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, fund balance restrictions
and other limitations to the local government budget and taxing process can
impose financial hardships on communities.
Levy limits undermine local budgeting processes, planned growth, and the
relationship between locally elected officials and their residents by having the
State determine the appropriate level of local taxation and services, despite
varying local conditions and circumstances.
B. Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program
Position The City of Lakeville supports continuing the Homestead Market Value
Exclusion program in its current form with the exception of minor changes to
accommodate unintended consequences.
Background In 2011 new state laws established a Market Value Homestead
Exclusion Program, and repealed the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
program. The new program is intended to provide property tax relief by reducing
the taxable value of qualifying homesteads.
The new Homestead Market Value Exclusion program is an improvement from
the former MVHC program in that the new program removes local governments
from the MVHC reimbursement structure. But under the new Market Value
Exclusion Program, the City's tax base is decreased by the amount of all
excluded property, so that even if the City and other taxing jurisdictions certified
no levy increases, many properties will see tax increases. The new program
results in a shifting of property tax burden within jurisdictions, as well as tax
increases on most properties.
The City of _Lakeville will_ - monitor the effects of the new Market Value Exclusion
Program, and supports statutory changes to address issues that have been
identified in the initial implementation of the program including:
Levy limits based on certain market value based levies, including those
impacting economic development authorities and port authorities, as well as
Page 3/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
debt limits based on market value, should be computed on the market value of
the jurisdiction before the homestead market value exclusion is applied.
• Current law allows for adjustments to a TIF district's original net tax capacity to
reflect the conversion of a taxable property to exempt status and adjustments
in classifications, but the statutes do not address tax base changes as a result
of the new exclusion program. The new program will negatively impact certain
housing TIF districts as the current value of certain districts will be reduced by
the exclusion, but the original net tax capacity will not be adjusted, and
increments available to the district will decline. The City of Lakeville supports
statutory revisions to allow for an adjustment to the original net tax capacity
calculation to reflect the new homestead market value exclusion.
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Position Lakeville opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund metropolitan
programs since it results in a metropolitan -wide property tax increase hidden from
the public. Lakeville supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program in
its current form until such time as an appropriate replacement is developed.
Background The City of Lakeville supported the passage of 2010 legislation to
conduct an analysis of the Fiscal Disparities Program. The study is being
conducted by the Commissioner of Revenue and is due February 1, 2012. The
study shall analyze the benefits of economic growth across the region, the
program's impact on tax rates across the region, the impact of homestead
property tax burdens across jurisdictions, and the relationship between the
impacts of the program and overburden on jurisdictions with properties that
provide regional benefits. The City of Lakeville supports the continuation of the
fiscal disparities program unless an appropriate replacement is developed.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
Position Lakeville supports the state reinstating the sales tax exemption for all
local government purchases.
Background When the state was experiencing a budget shortfall in 1992, the
Legislature repealed the sales tax exemption for local government purchase.
Cities and counties now pay state sales tax on purchases like road maintenance
supplies and equipment, wastewater treatment facilities, and some public safety
equipment. This tax currently costs local property taxpayers and ratepayers more
than $100 million annually. In addition, proposals to extend the sales tax to
services would have the effect of increasing local government costs and property
taxes. Because no additional state aids were added to offset the additional costs,
this repeal has effectively increased local property taxes to finance state
operations.
Page 4/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
Position The City supports targeting property tax relief directly to individuals as
opposed to direct aid programs like Local Government Aid (LGA) and believes
that property values are not the most appropriate measure of "ability to pay"
property taxes.
Background Lakeville supports additional property tax relief to those in greatest
need by directing dollars to the circuit breaker program from programs such as
Local Government Aid. (LGA). The circuit breaker income adjusted property tax
relief program provides direct assistance to those homeowners in greatest need
whether or not those local homeowners reside in a city which receives direct aids
from the State. Lakeville believes that on a long term basis, the State should
focus property tax relief to individual taxpayers instead of local units of
government. Such a program provides equitable tax relief to all property tax
payers in Minnesota.
II. Transportation
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District
Position The City of Lakeville opposes the State imposing the Transit Taxing
District upon cities. The City of Lakeville supports funding of all transit capital
expenses and operating subsidies into the State budget through the use of Motor
Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) revenues or other statewide revenue sources.
Background The Transit Taxing District is a funding source for capital expenses
such as transit stations and buses. These expenses account for about 10% of
the cost of operating a transit system. The operating costs of the transit system
are paid by all residents of the state through other revenues such as the gas tax
and sales tax.
The transit taxing district is an unfair tax in that it taxes a small geographic area
for a service that is enjoyed by the entire state. The metropolitan transit service
area has grown beyond the seven - county region and therefore no manner of
regional taxation is sufficient to fairly distribute the cost of the capital expenses.
B. Transportation System Maintenance Funding
Policy The City of Lakeville supports State efforts to bolster financial resources
needed to address road and highway improvements. The City of Lakeville also
supports efforts to provide cities with adequate tools to provide funding to
maintain and improve local roadways.
Page 5/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
Background Current levels of funding for roads and highways is inadequate to
maintain existing road and highway needs and meets the needs of growing areas
such as Lakeville. Lakeville recognizes the need for additional transportation
funding statewide, and will continue to advocate for additional resources to
maintain the State's transportation infrastructure.
In addition, cities still lack the authority to use additional tools for city street
improvements; such resources continue to be restricted to property taxes and
special assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority be granted to
municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
The City of will be financing more than $19 million of street maintenance and
reconstruction projects with property taxes over the next five years. The requisite
projects have the potential of resulting in a 3 - 6% annual increase in property
taxes in the coming years. Street maintenance and reconstruction projects will be
one of the most significant contributing factors to future property tax increases.
This is addition to more than $25 million of project costs financed from other
sources such as special assessments and municipal state -aid street funding.
C. Public Infrastructure Utilities
Position The Legislature should authorize cities to create, as a local option,
additional utilities such as a transportation or sidewalk utility. Such authority would
acknowledge the effects of repeated levy limits and the general funding shift from
the state to local governments for building and maintaining necessary
infrastructure; the benefits to all taxpayers of a properly maintained public
infrastructure; and, the limitations of existing special assessment authority.
Background Successful economic development efforts and community stability
are dependent upon a city's ability to make infrastructure investments. Current
infrastructure funding options available to cities are inadequate and
unsustainable. Funding pressures have been exacerbated by levy limits,
unallotment and reductions in the local government aid and market value
homestead credit programs. The existing special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch.
429, does not meet cities' financing needs because of the benefit requirement.
The law requires a minimum of 20 percent of such a project to be specially
assessed against affected properties. Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429
methods for financing infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. The
Legislature has given cities the authority to operate utilities for waterworks,
sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The storm sewer authority, established in
1983, set the precedent for a workable process of charging a use fee on a utility
bill for a city service infrastructure that is of value to everyone in a city. Similar to
the storm sewer authority, a transportation or sidewalk utility would use technical,
well- founded measurements and would equitably distribute the costs of local
infrastructure services.
Page 6/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
D. Relieve Congestion Along 1 -35 Through Lakeville
Policy Lakeville strongly encourages Mn /DOT and the Metropolitan Council to
find ways to reduce congestion on 1 -35 through Lakeville.
Background The 1 -35 interstate corridor is the busiest, most heavily travelled
highway corridor in Minnesota. Significant efforts have been made to reduce
congestion, increase safety and improve traffic flow along this vital transportation
roadway. Transit improvements made under the Urban Partnership Agreement in
2010 helps reduce the growth in traffic congestion by providing an effective
alternative to automobile travelers for downtown commuters. But the corridor also
feeds many other destinations for automobile and truck traffic.
There is a need to expand the capacity of 1 -35 in Lakeville to further increase
safety and improve traffic flow. Today there is congestion from the southern
border of Lakeville to County Road 46 due to a shortage of lane capacity. In
addition, approximately 196 crashes occurred in this section of Interstate 35 in
2010 and 2011 with four fatalities. The Federal Highway Administration has
commented previously that additional lanes are warranted along this stretch of
highway. Improving this condition will increase safety and be beneficial to the
region as it is the southern gateway to the metropolitan area. In addition, a third
5 ' r D n tu Co R � .J
1a11E on r3
.� uvm C oun t y R oa d 5 v tv vvlGiity r�Cad ry SiiCUid b CCii$Ider2u. A n
third lane in this area would provide increased regional access to the County
Road 70 corridor and take full advantage of the newly completed County Road
70/1 -35 interchange promoting continued corporate, office, industrial and
commercial growth in this area.
E. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor
Policy: Lakeville supports upholding the current law banning the study, planning,
design or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor for commuter rail purposes.
Background The Dan Patch Corridor is a proposed commuter rail line that would
serve a region which runs from Minneapolis to Northfield through the City of
Lakeville. It was proposed as a passenger rail line in 2000 after being identified as
a "Tier One" corridor in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's 2000
Commuter Rail System Plan. During the 2002 Minnesota legislative session a law
was passed that prohibited any future study, planning, design or engineering of
the Dan Patch Corridor for commuter rail purposes. Additionally, the law required
removing all references, other than references for historical purposes, to the Dan
Patch commuter rail line from any future revisions to the Metropolitan Council's
Transportation Development Guide and Regional Transit Master Plan, the State
Transportation Plan, and the Commissioner of Transportation's Commuter Rail
System Plan.
Page 7/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
III. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Policy Lakeville supports adding more time to the TIF flexibility given in the 2010
Jobs -State Stimulus bill. Current law requires that projects that utilize these new
flexible provisions of the TIF statutes be under construction by July 1, 2011.
Background The City of Lakeville has recently adopted a 2011 -13 Strategic Plan
for Economic Development. One of the goals of this plan is to develop a toolbox
of incentives to help facilitate economic development in the community. The City
suggests the Legislature consider expanding the use of TIF to assist in the
development of technological infrastructure and products, biotechnology,
research, transportation and transit oriented development, non - retail commercial
projects and modifying the various provisions of existing TIF law in order to better
facilitate redevelopment and housing activities. The League of Minnesota Cities
and Economic Development Association of Minnesota have adopted a similar
policy on this issue.
B. State Development Programs
Polio Lakeville supports continued State funding for Business Development
Programs.
Background Current business development programs include the Minnesota
Investment Fund and the Innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure
Program administered by DEED and the Transportation Economic Development
(TED) and Safety and Mobility Programs (SAM) administered by MnDOT. There
will continue to be needs to fund public infrastructure and other aspects of
commercial and industrial development that previously were able to be financed
with private funding sources.
IV. Housing
A. City Role in Housing
Policy Lakeville strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities'
authority to properly provide land -use planning, zoning ordinances, and
subdivision regulations based on the current housing stock, demographics, and
Background In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly
a private sector, market - driven activity. However, all cities facilitate the
development of housing via responsibilities in the areas of land -use planning,
zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Many cities choose to play an
Page 8/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
additional role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating
in state and regional housing programs and supporting either local or countywide
housing and redevelopment authorities. Cities are also responsible for ensuring
the health and safety of local residents and the structural soundness and livability
of the local housing stock via enforcement of the State Building Code.
B. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
Policy Lakeville supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes that
they are important to the economic and social well being of individual
communities and the region. Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of
state and federal governments and should not be borne by local property tax
payers.
Background Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable
and lifecycle housing by:
• Applying for state or federal funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
• Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into
new and existing neighborhoods.
• Establish standards that encourage affordable housing.
C. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements
Policy Lakeville recommends the State reject the International Building Code
provision that would require the installation of fire sprinklers in new single - family
and two - family homes.
Background The 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) contains a provision
that requires fire sprinkler systems to be installed in single family and two family
homes. The State of Minnesota reviewed this code during 2011 and is scheduled
to adopt the new 2012 IRC in the spring of 2012. One of the significant policy
issues is whether the State will choose to adopt the portion of the 2012 IRC that
includes the residential sprinkler provisions or whether they choose to amend this
provision out of the new code. The State of Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry convened an Advisory Committee on this issue that included
representatives of City Building Officials, Fire Marshals, Sprinkler System
Consultants, Manufacturers, and Installers, Builders Organizations and
representatives of City and County organizations. The intent was to see if a
compromise could be reached amongst the various groups on this issue. After
several meetings, the Builders - Groups -(BATC and BAM) concluded that no
information was presented addressing the public policy question as to whether
this requirement makes sense for Minnesota. As a result, these organizations do
not support adopting a new building code that requires sprinklers for one and two
family dwellings.
Page 9/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
V. General Legislation
A. Administrative Fines
Policy The City 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. Lakeville also endorses a fair hearing process before
a disinterested third party.
Background Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have
met with ever increasing cost to local units of government and the courts system
and the use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs. Lakeville
supports the use of administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as
building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public safety and nuisance
ordinances.
B. Wine in Grocery
Policy Lakeville, along with a coalition of private and public organizations,
including the Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association, opposes the Wine In
Grocery, Wiv initiative to greatly expand the number of outlets allowed to sell
alcohol.
Background The current laws in Minnesota provide reasonable convenience to
consumers while protecting youth from access to alcoholic beverages. Allowing
the sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores provides easier opportunities for
access by youth.
C. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Diseases and Pests
Policy Lakeville supports state funding that would assist cities with meeting the
costs of addressing shade tree disease and pest problems.
Background The resurgence of Dutch Elm Disease, the spread of Oak Wilt and
the growing Emerald Ash Borer infestation have brought about a significantly
increased need for city tree removal services. Consequently, this has put fiscal
pressure on city budgets at a time when many are still experiencing aid cuts.
Although the Department of Natural Resources' ReLeaf program and the
Department of Agriculture's Shade Tree and Invasive Species program currently
allow for addressing tree disease and pest problems, funding levels have been
inadequate to assist cities. Cities share the goal of the state's ReLeaf program —
promoting and funding the planting, maintenance, and improvement of trees in
the state. By not having the resources to take preventative steps to halt fast -
spreading diseases by removing infected trees in a timely manner, it ends up
costing cities significantly more in the long run.
Page 10/12
City of Lakeville 2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
D. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers
Policy Lakeville supports changes to the existing federal or state cable
franchising statutes that fully maintain local authority and assure that all providers
meet community needs and interests, including PEG channel capacity, funding
and institutional networks (I -Nets) consistent with up -to -date technology and
tailored to reasonable technical and operational differences among providers.
Background Under current state law, local franchising authorities must adopt
agreements that are "no more favorable or less burdensome" with regard to area
served, public, educational and government (PEG) programming and franchise
fees.
The state Legislature and Congress should recognize and support increased
flexibility in the exercise of local franchising authority in order to encourage entry
by competitive multi - channel video service providers, without giving unfair
advantage to one provider over another. Local franchising authorities need
flexibility to take advantage of opportunities to provide increased customer choice
while requiring a measure designed to prevent economic, racial or other
discriminatory redlining or "cherry- picking" that could result in creation of a "digital
divide" within the community.
E. Mandates & Local Authority
Policy Lakeville opposes statutory changes which erode local control and
authority or create mandated additional tasks requiring new or added local costs
without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded
mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities' ability to fund
traditional service needs.
F. Elected Metropolitan Council
Policy Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open
process that includes an opportunity for local governments and other stakeholders
to provide meaningful input. Council members should understand and be
responsive to the districts they represent while also serving the best interests of
the region. Metropolitan Council members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
Background The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency serving the
Twin Cities- seven- county metropolitan area and providing essential services to
the region. The 17- member Metropolitan Council has 16 members who each
represent a geographic district and one chair serving at large. They are all
appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the governor. The State Senate
confirms Council member appointments.
Page 11/12
City of Lakeville
2012 Legislative Policy Priorities
G. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas
Policy Minnesota's Federal Congressional Representatives should initiate
legislative actions to create laws or rules that would prohibit the current practice of
storing railroad cars within urbanized residential neighborhoods without the
express written consent of the City.
Background An active but little used section of freight railroad track runs through
the City of Lakeville and a majority of the track runs through residential
neighborhoods or is adjacent to residential homes. While the railroad track is
classified as an active line several sections are in poor condition and are not
used. Therefore, the tracks are being used for the storage of inactive rail cars in
accordance with current Federal authority without any limits as to the amount of
time that they may be stored. Adjacent residential property owners are
experiencing detrimental effects on their homes and neighborhoods due to the
storage of these railroad cars including visual blight impacts affecting residential
home values, safety of children and general welfare of the community. Lakeville
City Council passed a resolution in 2009 requesting Minnesota's Federal
Congressional Representatives initiate legislative actions to address this issue.
Page 12/12