HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 081A
Lakeville
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Steven C. Mielke, City Administrator
City of Lakeville
Administration
Allyn G. Kuennen, Assistant to the City Administrator /Associate Planner
Date: June 20, 2013
Subject: 2013 City of Lakeville Legislative Priorities Recap.
As you are aware the 2013 Minnesota State Legislative session has concluded with several
bills being passed that will affect the City of Lakeville. These bills include changes in
homestead market exclusion, fiscal disparity, taxation of government purchases, data
requests for citizen contact information and housing improvement areas. The attached
document includes the City of Lakeville Legislative Priorities and a recap outlining the actions
taken for each priority.
City staff will be available to review and discuss the 2013 Lakeville Legislative Priorities Recap
at the June 24th City Council work session. If you have any questions before then please
contact us.
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities
RECAP
4".
City of Lakeville
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
I. 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
II . Transportation ...................................................... ..............................6
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
III. Economic Development ............................................ .............................10
A. Tax Increment Financing
B. State Development Programs
IV . Housing .................................................................. .............................11
A. City Role in Housing
B. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
C. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements
D. Housing Improvement Areas (HIA)
V. General Legislation ................................................ ............................... 13
A. Administrative Citations
B. Sunday Sales
C. Growler Sales
D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests
E. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers
F. Mandates & Local Authority
G. Elected Metropolitan Council
H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas
I. Donation /Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property
J. Data Requests for Citizens Contact Information
Page 2/19
City of Lakeville
Municipal Revenue & Taxation
A. Levy Limits
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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.
Recap: The legislature and governor approved a one -year levy limit of 3 %.
The levy limit includes a two -year look -back, and exempts debt service, voter
approved, and natural disaster levies.
B. Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program
Position The City of Lakeville opposed the former market value homestead credit
structure, because the state failed to reimburse most local units of government for
costs of the program, which resulted in unpredictable holes in those local
government budgets or required those jurisdictions to shift the cost of the program
across its property taxpayers. Similarly, because the credit structure is no longer in
place and the state is no longer paying any portion of its property tax relief
program, implementation of the new MVHE program in 2012 forcibly shifted the
property tax burden within local jurisdictions in the state and increased property
taxes to pay for its costs.
The City of Lakeville supports statutory changes to address issues that have been
identified in the implementation of the program around levy limits based on market
value, including those impacting economic development authorities and port
authorities, as well as debt limits based on market value. These limits should be
computed on the market value of the jurisdiction before the homestead market
value exclusion is applied.
The City of Lakeville also opposes restoration of the former Market Value
Homestead Credit, and encourages elimination of the new exclusion, as the
program shifts taxes onto other property classes and further complicates the
property tax system.
Page 3/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
Background In 2011, new state laws established a Market Value Homestead
Exclusion Program, and repealed the Market Value Homestead Credit. The intent
of both programs was to provide property tax relief to qualifying homesteads, the
former MVHC through credits on local government tax bills and the new MVHE
through reductions in property tax values. Under the former MVHC, the state
reimbursed local governments in exchange for reducing the taxable value of
qualifying properties. The new program pays for the property tax relief by shifting
property taxes within jurisdictions.
Recap: The Market Value Homestead Credit was not reinstated. The
legislature did modify the Homestead Market Value Exclusion tax bill which
authorizes development authorities to elect to reduce the original net tax
capacity of a TIF district for the effects of enactment of the homestead
market value exclusion. The election must be approved by the municipality
in which the TIF district is located. The election is limited to "qualified TIF
districts" — generally meaning districts that have a large loss in captures tax
capacity as a result of enactment of the homestead market value exclusion.
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Position The City of Lakeville supports the Fiscal Disparities Program and
opposes any diversion from the fiscal disparities pool to fund specific programs or
projects, as this would contradict the purposes of the program.
Background The Twin Cities Area Fiscal Disparities Program, enacted in 1971,
was created for the purposes of:
• Providing a way for local governments to share in the resources generated by
the growth of the metropolitan area without removing existing resources.
• To promote orderly development of the region by reducing the impact of fiscal
considerations on the location of business and infrastructure.
• To establish incentives for all parts of the area to work for the growth of the area
as a whole.
• To help communities at various stages of development.
• To encourage protection of the environment by reducing the impact of fiscal
considerations to ensure protection of parks, open space, and wetlands.
The 2011 legislative study of Fiscal Disparities, which Metro Cities participated in
and supported, has stimulated discussion of the program at the Legislature, and
Metro Cities anticipates modifications to the program to be proposed in the 2013
legislative session.
Legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program should only
be considered within a framework of comprehensive reform efforts to the state's
Page 4/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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.
Further studies or task forces to consider modifications to the fiscal disparities
program must include participation and input from metropolitan local government
representatives.
Recap: No action taken.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
Position The City of Lakeville supports the reinstatement of the sales tax
exemption for all local government purchases. The exemption must not be
coupled with cuts in local government aid (LGA) or other state shared revenues.
Any future expansion of the sales tax base should exempt purchases by cities.
Any sales tax study conducted by the Department of Revenue or the Legislature
should review the practice of local units of government paying sales tax.
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.
Recap: The Legislature and Governor passed a bill that adds cities and
counties to the list of purchasers eligible for a sales tax exemption on
qualifying purchases. The tax bill retains current law to not extend the
exemption to goods or services purchased as inputs to goods or services
generally provided by a private business, such as those provided by liquor
stores, utilities, golf courses, marinas, health and fitness centers,
campgrounds, cafes and laundromats.
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
Page 5/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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.
Recap: The following legislative actions were taken regarding property tax
relief:
• LGA Reform & Funding - $80 million in FY 14 -15; $160 million in FY 16-
17. The conferees did not adopt a permanent LGA automatic
inflationary increase. Instead, the formula will receive a one -time
inflationary adjustment in the following fiscal year.
• County Aid - $40 million in FY 14 -15; $80 million in FY 16 -17.
• Renter's Credit - $15.5 million in FY 14 -15; $33.6 million in FY 16 -17,
which equates to a 7.5 percent increase.
• The circuit breaker (now called the "Homestead Credit Refund ") was
funded at $85.6 million in FY 14 -15, which equates to a 25 percent
increase.
• The Legislature also provides about $34 million to the Department of
Revenue for a targeted notification program. Rather than notifying all
homeowners of their eligibility for the Homestead Credit Refund, the
program is limited to only notifying homeowners who qualify for $1,000
of PTR or more.
I. 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.
Page 6/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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.
Recap: No changes occurred to the transit taxing district.
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.
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 Lakeville 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.
Recap: Although no comprehensive funding package was passed this year,
the final bill that passed included the following:
• Wheelage Tax — authority was granted to all 87 counties at $10 per
vehicle and up to $20 per vehicle starting in 2018. Current law only
allows metro counties to impose a $5 wheelage tax.
• Corridors of Commerce — program created with a one -time infusion of
$300 million in trunk highway bonds effective July 2014. This program
is designed to channel funds to the state highway projects that improve
commerce under a formula to be established by MnDOT.
Page 7/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
• Transportation Economic Development Program (TED) — this is a
reestablishment of a program and is funded with $10 million per year in
existing truck highway dollars. No general fund dollars were
appropriated this session.
• Funding to the Metropolitan Council is allowed to rise back to its
forecasted levels to pay the state's share of the general funds for transit
operating costs.
• The referendum requirement was eliminated for greater Minnesota
counties who wish to impose a half cent local option sales tax for
transportation improvements.
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.
Recap: No action taken.
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.
Page 8/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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 lane on 1 -35
from County Road 50 to County Road 70 should be considered. A 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.
Recap: No action taken.
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.
Recap: A bill was introduced, but no action was taken.
Page 9/19
City of Lakeville
II. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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.
Recap: A bill was introduced to extend the timeframe, but no action was
taken.
B. State Development Programs
Policy 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.
Recap: Included in the Economic Development Bill is $30 million in new
money for the Minnesota Investment Fund. The bill also includes $24 million
in new money for a job creation fund that will enable DEED to use the funds
to help businesses make capital investments and create jobs in the state.
Other economic development appropriations include:
Page 10/19
City of Lakeville
• Roughly $2.85 million is
competitive grant program
for two consecutive years.
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
appropriated for the business development
. All grants shall be awarded in the first year
• $8.39 million is appropriated for the Minnesota job skills partnership
program.
• The adult workforce development competitive grant program will
receive just over $2 million from the general fund and an additional $4.5
million from the workforce development fund.
• The Minnesota youth program will receive $7 million from the workforce
development fund.
• $3 million is provided for the FastTRAC program, which helps those
with barriers to finding a job, such as a language barrier or not having a
GED, secure employment.
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
market conditions.
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 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.
Recap: No action taken.
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.
Page 11/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
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.
Recap: No action taken.
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.
Recap: The requirement to install fire sprinklers in new single — family and
two- family homes failed and will not be adopted as part of the 2014 update of
the International Residential Code.
D. Housing Improvement Areas (HIA)
Policy The City of Lakeville supports legislation to extend the authority of cities to
create new HIA(s) and eliminate the expiration clause within the law.
Page 12/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
Background A housing improvement area (HIA) is a defined area in a city in
which housing improvements in condominium or townhome complexes may be
financed with the assistance of the city, or the city's economic development
authority (EDA) or housing and redevelopment authority (HRA). Prior to 1996,
cities needed special legislation to establish an HIA. In 1996, cities were granted
the authority under general law. The law is set to expire on June 30, 2013.
The City of Lakeville created its first HIA in 2012 for the Niakwa Village 2nd
Addition townhome development. This is a 52 unit townhome development
constructed in the 1980s in need of improvements to the exterior of the units which
are the responsibility of the homeowners association. Conventional bank
financing for the improvements could not be obtained by the homeowners
association. The creation of the HIA allowed the homeowners association to
obtain financing through the Dakota County CDA. The City is likely to have other
townhome associations in similar situations in the coming years.
Recap: The sunset provisions for special service districts and housing
improvement areas were extended to June 30, 2028. In addition, the
authority to create housing improvement districts was granted to the Dakota
County CDA.
V. General Legislation
A. Administrative Citations
Policy Lakeville supports the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory
ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, public nuisance
ordinances, and regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or
higher level state traffic and criminal offenses. The Legislature should clarify that
both statutory and home rules charter cities have the authority to issue
administrative citations for code violations. Further, state statute should allow
statutory and home rule charter cities to adjudicate administrative citations and to
assess a lien on properties for unpaid administrative fines.
Background Many statutory and home rule charter cities have implemented
administrative enforcement programs for violations of local regulatory ordinances
such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public nuisance
ordinances. This use of administrative proceedings has kept enforcement at the
local level and reduced pressure on over - burdened district court systems. Cities
using administrative enforcement processes experience a lower cost of
enforcement and a quicker resolution to code violations. Minnesota statutes
expressly provide the authority for all cities to utilize administrative enforcement of
local codes and enforcement of liquor license and tobacco license violations. In
2009, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. ch. 169, the chapter of law pertaining
to state traffic regulations, to allow cities and counties to issue administrative
Page 13/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
citations for certain minor traffic offenses. Since the passage of the 2009
administrative traffic citations law, some people have questioned whether
administrative citations for nontraffic, liquor, and tobacco license code violations
can be legally issued by statutory cities given that state law does not expressly
provide authority on other code matters.
Recap: No action taken.
B. Sunday Sales
Policv The City of Lakeville is opposed to any legislation that would allow off -sale
Sunday sales of alcohol.
Background The City of Lakeville is a member the Minnesota Municipal Beverage
Association. The Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association has taken the
position to oppose Sunday sales, as has the Minnesota Licensed Beverage
Association. There are two groups pushing this agenda, the DISCUS — Distilled
Spirits Council of the United States which is a national distilled spirits association
(not to be confused with our wholesalers and distributors who oppose the
legislation), and a small advocacy group called the Minnesota Beer Activists (this
is not an industry association, it is a group of beer advocates that believe Sunday
sales is philosophically beneficial to their personal lives).
Advocates of the legislation state that Sunday sales has the potential to increase
state revenue on liquor taxes to increase by 5 -7 %. This has not been the case in
the states that have allowed Sunday sales. In addition, in the State of New Mexico
where the legislation was changed to allow Sunday sales, two separate studies
have been completed that has proven that Sunday sales have been associated
with increased traffic deaths and has negatively impacted health care providers,
insurers, law enforcement and the judicial systems. In fact the impacts were so
negatively impacting public safety so much that some counties have quickly held
elections to re- institute bans on Sunday packaged alcohol sales.
Recap: No action taken.
C. Growler Sales
Policv The City of Lakeville opposes any legislation allowing growler sales at off -
sale liquor establishments and retailers.
Page 14/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
Background Growlers are 22 oz. or 64 oz. refillable containers used by patrons
to purchase and carry out draft beer. Growler sales were first approved by the
legislature four years ago, in which brew pubs could sell their draught beers to the
public. Locations would include Granite City Pubs and the like. There is now a
push by consumers to do similar in off sale locations. The Minnesota Municipal
Beverage Association has taken the position that growler sales are "metrocentric"
and very few retailers would take advantage of it due to the writing of proposed
legislation which states: "Only beers that are not available in the market in any
other package form would be allowed to sell in growlers" This would mean that an
off sale could only sell beers that are not available in any other form, thus
eliminating premium craft beers such as Summit and Lienenkugal's. There are
several additional issues with this legislation such as labeling, high cost of tap
lines, liability regarding sanitation and other health codes. In addition, many beer
wholesalers do not want this to occur with their products as they believe the
integrity of their product could be jeopardized if not handled properly.
Recap: The legislature authorized that a Small Brewer Licensed as defined
by State Statue may be issued by a municipality for off -sale of malt liquor at
its licensed premises that has been produced and packaged by the brewer
with the following conditions:
• The amount of malt liquor sold at off -sale may not exceed 500 barrels
annually.
• Off -sale of malt liquor shall be limited to the legal hours for off -sale at
exclusive liquor stores in the jurisdiction in which the brewer is located,
and the malt liquor sold off -sale must be removed from the premises
before the applicable off -sale closing time at exclusive liquor stores.
• The malt liquor shall be packed in 64 -ounce containers commonly known
as "growlers" or in 750 milliliter bottles.
• The containers or bottles shall bear a twist -type closure, cork, stopper, or
plug.
• At the time of the sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip, or sleeve
shall be applied to the container or bottle and extended over the top of
the twist -type closure, cork, stopper, or plug forming a seal that must be
broken upon opening of the container or bottle.
• The adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall bear the name and address of
the brewer.
• The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the
name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer selling
the malt liquor, and shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the
alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise.
• The municipality shall impose a licensing fee on a brewer holding a
license subject to limitations applicable to license fees as regulated by
State Statue.
Page 15/19
City of Lakeville 2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Diseases and Pests
Policv 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.
Recap: No action taken.
E. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers
Policv 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.
Recap: No action taken.
Page 16/19
City of Lakeville 2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
F. 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.
Recap: The 2013 legislative session include the following mandates that
affect the City of Lakeville:
• Selecting Solid Waste Collectors — In cities or towns with more than one
licensed hauler, the new law eliminates the 180 -day process for
adopting organized collection and replaces it with a 60 -day negotiation
period between a city and its licensed collectors. If the city does not
meet an agreement with haulers during the 60 -day period, city officials
will have to establish a committee to evaluate options and hold a public
hearing before implementing organized collection. A contract executed
under the 60 -day negotiation period must be effective for three to seven
years. The city must provide public notice and hold at least one public
hearing before implementing the agreement.
• Employee Sick Leave Expansion — Employees who work under a
vacation /sick leave method of paid time off would be granted a
minimum of four weeks sick leave to care for an ailing relative,
including caring for an adult, child, spouse, parent, grandparent, or
stepparent.
G. Elected Metropolitan Council
Policy The City of Lakeville supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council
members by the Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The
appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the
Governor.
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.
Recap: No action taken.
Page 17/19
City of Lakeville 2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
H. 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.
Recap: No action taken.
I. Donation /Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property
Policy Lakeville supports revised legislation to streamline the process to allow the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to quickly and efficiently transfer tax
forfeiture properties to local government units.
Background There are several parcels throughout the City of Lakeville currently
owned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that were acquired
through tax forfeiture. Many of these parcels are adjacent to lakes or wetlands
and are not developable. Many of these properties would provide natural open
space areas, passive parks or space for the construction of trail connections to city
and regional trail systems. The DNR is currently working to transfer these
properties to the local government units where they are located.
Recap: No action taken.
J. Data Requests for Citizens Contact Information
Policy The City of Lakeville supports legislation to amend the Data Practices Act
to make citizen contact information not accessible to the public. Citizens who
submit their email addresses or phone numbers to local units of govemment
Page 18/19
City of Lakeville
2013 Legislative Priorities Recap
should not have their contact information disclosed to third parties for marketing,
soliciting, campaigning or other purposes by operation of the Data Practices Act.
Background Cities have seen an increase in data requests for the email
addresses of any and all citizens who have contacted the City to conduct
business, register a complaint, express an opinion about a City service, or simply
to receive general information from the City via email. Citizens have expressed
frustration that the act of contacting their city government makes their email
addresses available to any third party who makes a data practices request. Email
addresses and other contact information are public data under the Data Practices
Act, and cities are required to provide the requested information to any person
requesting it. Once disclosed, the email addresses can then be used for
marketing, soliciting, campaigning, or commercial purposes. The release of citizen
contact information to third parties undermines trust in government and makes it
less likely that citizens will contact the City.
Recap: The Data Practices Bill includes a provision that will classify
individuals' email addresses and phone numbers as private data, if they are
submitted to cities to receive notifications or general information.
The new language will protect contact information used by cities and state
agencies to send newsletters, crime data, agendas, meeting minutes, and
other similar information sent to citizens who request such updates from
their government. The content that is sent to citizens remains public data.
Page 19/19