HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06.nLakeville
January 16, 2014
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
2015 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Proposed Action
Item No.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve the City of Lakeville
2015 Legislative 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 2015 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 2015 Legislative Priorities as reviewed at the
January 12th 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
• Redlined copy of the 2015 Legislative Priorities as revised at the January 12th work
session.
• Final copy of the 2015 Legislative Priorities.
en, Assistant City Administrator
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
City of Lakeville
2015 Legislative Priorities
k
Adopted January , 2015
4*
y
Index
ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................3
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation..................................................................5
A. Levy Limits
B. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
II. Transportation.......................................................................................7
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District
B. Transportation System Improvement and Maintenance Funding
C. MnDOT Maintenance Budget
D. Public Infrastructure Utilities
E. Street Improvement Districts
F. Relieve Congestion Along 1-35 through Lakeville
G. 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, Life Cycle and Attainable Housing
V. General Legislation................................................................................12
A. Administrative Citations
B. Sunday Sales
C. Recycling Refund Program for Beverage Containers
D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests
E. Franchising 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. Water Resources Management
Executive Summary
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation
A. Levy Limits - The City of Lakeville strongly opposes levy limits and other forms of levy
restrictions imposed upon local governments.
B. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs - The City of Lakeville supports providing
additional property tax relief directly to homeowners through an expansion of the
Homestead Credit Refund program, the targeting program or other programs that
provide property tax relief directly from the state to taxpayers..
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution - The City of Lakeville supports the Fiscal
Disparities Program and opposes any diversion from the fiscal disparities pool to fund
specific programs or projects.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases - The City of Lakeville supports further
clarifications and adjustments to the sales tax exemptions as passed during the 2013
legislative session.
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals - The City supports targeting
property tax relief directly to individuals as opposed to direct aid programs like Local
Government Aid (LGA).
II. Transportation
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District - 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 through the use of
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) revenues or other statewide revenue sources.
B. Transportation System Improvement and Maintenance Funding - The City of
Lakeville supports State efforts to bolster financial resources needed to address road
and highway improvements.
C. MnDOT Maintenance Budget - The City of Lakeville supports MnDOT taking full
responsibility for maintaining state owned infrastructure within city limits.
D. Public Infrastructure Utilities - The Legislature should authorize cities to create, as a
local option, additional utilities such as a transportation or sidewalk utility.
E. Street Improvement Districts - The City of Lakeville supports the authority of local
units of government to establish street improvement districts.
F. Relieve Congestion along 1-35 through Lakeville - Lakeville strongly encourages
MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council to find ways to reduce congestion improve
safety and increase transit options on 1-35 through Lakeville.
G. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor - Lakeville is against any State and Federal
funding that supports UphOldiRg th8 nUrrent. lout harming the study, planning, design
or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor
III.Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing - The Legislature should 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.
B. State Development Programs - Lakeville supports continued State funding for
Business Development Programs.
IV. Housing
A. City Role in Housing - 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.
B. City Role in Affordable, Life Cycle and Attainable Housing — Lakeville supports
affordable, life cycle and attainable housing.
V. General Legislation
A. Administrative Citations - Lakeville supports the use of city administrative fines for
local regulatory ordinances.
B. Sunday Sales - The City of Lakeville does not s ^,�-�ppeasupport4-G any legislation
that would allow off -sale Sunday sales of alcohol.
C. Recycling Refund Program for Beverage Containers - The City of Lakeville opposes
any legislation that creates a recycling refund program for beverage containers.
D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests — Lakeville supports state
funding that would assist cities with meeting the costs of addressing shade tree
disease and pest problems.
E. Franchising Cable Service Providers - 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.
F. Mandates & Local Authority - 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.
G. Elected Metropolitan Council - The City of Lakeville supports four year staggered
terms for members.
H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas - 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 consent of the City.
I. Donation/Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property - 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.
J. Water Resources Management - The City of Lakeville supports efforts to review and
better align water resource management in the state, to make the system more
straightforward and easy to use without jeopardizing water quality.
4
2015 Legislative 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 iocai 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. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs
Position: The City of Lakeville supports providing additional property tax relief directly
to homeowners through an expansion of the Homestead Credit Refund program, the
targeting program or other programs that provide property tax relief directly from the
state to taxpayers. In addition, the City supports the 2013 legislation that requires the
Department of Revenue to notify potentially eligible homeowners of the program and
would also support legislative modifications to these programs to eliminate the
taxpayer filing requirement thereby making the tax relief payments automatic. The City
opposes property tax credit programs that reimburse local units of government for
reduced tax burden such as the former market value homestead credit system due to
the fact that the reimbursements to local units of government can be cut while the
credit to the taxpayer remains on the property tax statement. In addition, the City
opposes reinstituting Limited Market Value, a program that reduces the taxable value
of individual properties based on assessor's valuation increase. Limited Market Value
creates inequities between similar properties based solely on the valuation increase
determined by the assessor.
Background: In 2013, the legislature expanded the homeowner property tax refund
(PTR) program and renamed it the Homestead Credit Refund program. As a direct
taxpayer relief program, the Homestead Credit Refund avoids the problems with the
former Market Value Homestead Credit system where the state provided a credit on
the homeowner's property tax statement but did not always reimburse cities and
counties for the amount of the credit.
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 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.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
Position: The City of Lakeville supports the following clarifications and adjustments to
the sales tax exemptions as passed during the 2013 legislative session:
• Clarifying the eligibility of purchases by all joint powers entities and agreements so
that purchases are exempt as long as the service provided is a service primarily
provided by a governmental entity, even when there is participation by non-profit
organizations or other entities. Purchases by economic development authorities,
housing and redevelopment authorities and port authorities should also be exempt.
• Clarifying which purchases are ineligible for the exemption due to being generally
provided by a private business. This clarification should limit taxable purchases to
goods or services predominantly provided by private businesses.
• Granting an extension of the motor vehicle sales tax exemption that currently
applies to marked squad cars and firefighting apparatus to all municipal vehicles
that are used for general city functions and are provided by governmental entities.
Background: The City of Lakeville supports the reinstatement of the sales tax
exemption for purchases of goods and services made by cities that was enacted into
law in the 2013 legislative session. To ensure that citizens receive the full benefit of
this exemption, the new 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.
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
income not property value is 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 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 Improvement and 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 $ 36.9 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 — 8-10% 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 in addition
to more than $ 35.6 million of project costs financed from other sources such as
special assessments and municipal state -aid street funding.
C. MnDOT Maintenance Budget
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports MnDOT taking full responsibility for maintaining
state owned infrastructure within city limits.
Background: The state has abrogated its responsibility for maintaining major roads
throughout the state by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of
maintenance on major state roads. Cities should be compensated equitably for
providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. MnDOT should also
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.
D. 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, Minnesota State Statute Chapter 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 Minnesota State Statute Chapter 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.
E. Street Improvement Districts
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports the authority of local units of government to
establish street improvement districts and 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.
Background: Funding sources for local transportation projects are limited to the use of
Municipal State Aid (MSA), property taxes and special assessments, and 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 the use of a fair
and objective fee structure, to create a district or districts within the city where fees will
be raised but must also be spent. Street improvement districts would also aid cities
under 5,000, giving them an alternative to the property tax system and special
assessments.
F. Relieve Congestion Along 1-35 Through Lakeville
Policy: Lakeville strongly encourages MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council to find
ways to reduce congestion, improve safety and increase transit options on 1-35
through Lakeville.
Background: The 1-35 interstate corridor is one of the busiest and most heavily
travelled highway corridors 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
helped 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 commercial 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 south of Lakeville to County
Road 46 due to a shortage of lane capacity. In addition, between 2010 and 20134
hundreds of accidents have occurred along this section of Interstate 35 through
Lakeville that have included multiple fatalities. The City of Lakeville believes the
following improvements should be considered:
• Additional park and ride facilities should be considered. Within the next five years
the Metropolitan Council has determined the Kenrick Station park and ride facility
will be at capacity and additional parking for transit riders will be needed. The
construction of additional parking capacity will continue to help remove vehicles
from the transportation system and reduce overall roadway congestion.
Construction of a third lane from County Road 50 to County Road 70. The
construction of a third lane in this area could serve as a general purpose lane.,-er
an extension of the MnPass lane or as an extension of the Metro Transit BRT
from its current terminus in Burnsville to County Road 70. Improving Interstate
35 will improve safety and capacity and 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 and the Kenrick Avenue park and ride facility
promoting continued corporate, office, industrial and commercial growth in this
area.
G. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor
Policy: Lakeville is against any State and Federal funding that supports
,rren+ 1-aw banning the study, planning, design or engineering of the Dan Patch
Corridor -8-S.
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. State and Fe
eri funding of planning, design engineering and construction of
improvement_ and exoansioo of the existigg road and bridge infrastructure and BRT
System.
111. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Policy: Tax Increment Financing — Cities need greater flexibility to use TIF for
community and economic development that supports a city's residents and
businesses. Further restrictions of TIF would render the tool less effective and will
hinder local efforts to support job creation, housing and redevelopment. The
Legislature should 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
10
■
,
■
it
•_
=10 1111.
111. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Policy: Tax Increment Financing — Cities need greater flexibility to use TIF for
community and economic development that supports a city's residents and
businesses. Further restrictions of TIF would render the tool less effective and will
hinder local efforts to support job creation, housing and redevelopment. The
Legislature should 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
10
provisions of existing TIF law in order to better facilitate redevelopment and housing
activities.
Background: The City of Lakeville has a Strategic Plan for Economic Development.
One of the goals of this plan is the development of a toolbox of incentives to help
facilitate economic development in the community. The League of Minnesota Cities
and Economic Development Association of Minnesota have adopted a similar policy
on these issues.
B. State Development Programs
Policv: Lakeville supports the increased State funding for Business Development
Programs approved during the 2013 Legislature.
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 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.
B. City Role in Affordable, Life Cycle and Attainable Housing
Policy: Lakeville supports affordable, life cycle and attainable housing and recognizes
that they are important to the economic and social well-being of individual communities
and the region. Funding for affordable, life cycle and attainable housing is the
responsibility of state and federal governments and should not be borne by local
property tax payers. In addition, the City opposes any mandated housing
requirements.
Background: Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable, life
cycle and attainable housing by:
11
Applying for state or federal funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable, life cycle and
attainable housing into new and existing neighborhoods.
Establish standards that encourage affordable, life cycle, and attainable housing.
V. General Legislation
A. Administrative Citations
Policv: 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 citations for certain minor traffic offenses. Since the
passage of the 2009 administrative traffic citations law, some people have questioned
whether administrative citations for non -traffic, 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.
B. Sunday Sales
Policv: The City of Lakeville is -opposed redoes not support any legislation that would
allow off -sale Sunday sales of alcohol.
Background: The City of Lakeville is a member of 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).
12
Advocates of the legislation state that Sunday sales have 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.
C. Recycling Refund Program for Beverage Containers
Policv: The City of Lakeville opposes any legislation that creates a recycling refund
program for beverage containers due to the following:
Legislatively, the bill could be written in a way that would require the City to serve
as a redemption center, which would require additional burdens including a
recycling service, logistics and auditing.
• Minnesota is already the second highest recycling state in the country behind
California, it would be more cost effective to encourage single sort recycling
statewide.
It will place a large financial burden on the City's liquor stores, resulting in
increased credit card fees in excess,$3,000 for all stores combined.
Background: The MPCA, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was directed by the
Legislature to complete a study and make a recommendation regarding container
deposits. The directive is an attempt to achieve an 80% recycling rate in Minnesota.
The MPCA recommendation is for a $0.10 deposit to be placed on all beverage
containers. As the recommendation stands, retailers that sell containers that carry a
deposit are not required to serve as a reception center, however, that has not been
finalized.
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.
13
E. Franchising Cable Service Providers
Policv: The City of Lakeville supports attracting multiple cable television service
providers to the City by streamlining franchising requirements and removing
unnecessary impediments to entering the market — while preserving the city's control
of its rights-of-way, local programming, and customer service standards including PEG
channel capacity, funding and institutional networks (1 -nets)..
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 City believes that no case has been made for state-wide franchising. 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.
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.
G. Elected Metropolitan Council
Policv: The City of Lakeville supports 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.
H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas
Policv: 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.
14
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.
Donation/Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property
Policv: 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.
J. Water Resources Management
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports efforts to review and better align water resource
management in the state, to make the system more straight -forward and easy to use
without jeopardizing water quality. The City of Lakeville further supports when the
legislature considers actions that effect water management, such as permitting and
storm water regulations, legislators first consider the impact on local government, and
include local officials in any process that would affect them as important stakeholders.
Background: The current system is burdensome, confusing and inefficient to local
officials who must work within the system to facilitate growth and development and
who are working to ensure a healthy natural environment. A bipartisan taskforce of
local, county, state, and private sector officials should be created to address the
overlapping, duplicative, and conflicting requirements in the current system and
provide a recommendation on legislation to reduce and better align agency oversight.
15
City of Lakeville
2015 Legislative Priorities
Adopted January , 2015
Index
Executive Summary .......................................................................................3
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation..................................................................5
A. Levy Limits
B. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
II. Transportation.......................................................................................7
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District
B. Transportation System Improvement and Maintenance Funding
C. MnDOT Maintenance Budget
D. Public Infrastructure Utilities
E. Street Improvement Districts
F. Relieve Congestion Along 1-35 through Lakeville
G. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor
III. Economic Development .................
A. Tax Increment Financing
B. State Development Programs
..... ...................................................10
IV. Housing...............................................................................................11
A. City Role in Housing
B. City Role in Affordable, Life Cycle and Attainable Housing
V. General Legislation................................................................................12
A. Administrative Citations
B. Sunday Sales
C. Recycling Refund Program for Beverage Containers
D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests
E. Franchising 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. Water Resources Management
Executive Summary
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation
A. Levy Limits - The City of Lakeville strongly opposes levy limits and other forms of levy
restrictions imposed upon local governments.
B. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs - The City of Lakeville supports providing
additional property tax relief directly to homeowners through an expansion of the
Homestead Credit Refund program, the targeting program or other programs that
provide property tax relief directly from the state to taxpayers.
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution - The City of Lakeville supports the Fiscal
Disparities Program and opposes any diversion from the fiscal disparities pool to fund
specific programs or projects.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases - The City of Lakeville supports further
clarifications and adjustments to the sales tax exemptions as passed during the 2013
legislative session.
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals - The City supports targeting
property tax relief directly to individuals as opposed to direct aid programs like Local
Government Aid (LGA).
11. Transportation
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District - 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 through the use of
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) revenues or other statewide revenue sources.
B. Transportation System Improvement and Maintenance Funding - The City of
Lakeville supports State efforts to bolster financial resources needed to address road
and highway improvements.
C. MnDOT Maintenance Budget - The City of Lakeville supports MnDOT taking full
responsibility for maintaining state owned infrastructure within city limits.
D. Public Infrastructure Utilities - The Legislature should authorize cities to create, as a
local option, additional utilities such as a transportation or sidewalk utility.
E. Street Improvement Districts - The City of Lakeville supports the authority of local
units of government to establish street improvement districts.
F. Relieve Congestion along 1-35 through Lakeville - Lakeville strongly encourages
MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council to find ways to reduce congestion improve
safety and increase transit options on 1-35 through Lakeville.
G. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor - Lakeville is against any State and Federal
funding that supports the study, planning, design or engineering of the Dan Patch
Corridor.
III. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing - The Legislature should 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.
B. State Development Programs - Lakeville supports continued State funding for
Business Development Programs.
IV. Housing
A. City Role in Housing - 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.
B. City Role in Affordable, Life Cycle and Attainable Housing — Lakeville supports
affordable, life cycle and attainable housing.
V. General Legislation
A. Administrative Citations - Lakeville supports the use of city administrative fines for
local regulatory ordinances.
B. Sunday Sales - The City of Lakeville does not support any legislation that would
allow off -sale Sunday sales of alcohol.
C. Recycling Refund Program for Beverage Containers - The City of Lakeville opposes
any legislation that creates a recycling refund program for beverage containers.
D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests — Lakeville supports state
funding that would assist cities with meeting the costs of addressing shade tree
disease and pest problems.
E. Franchising Cable Service Providers - 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.
F. Mandates & Local Authority - 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.
G. Elected Metropolitan Council - The City of Lakeville supports four year staggered
terms for members.
H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas - 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 consent of the City.
I. Donation/Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property - 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.
J. Water Resources Management - The City of Lakeville supports efforts to review and
better align water resource management in the state, to make the system more
straightforward and easy to use without jeopardizing water quality.
El
2015 Legislative 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. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs
Position: The City of Lakeville supports providing additional property tax relief directly
to homeowners through an expansion of the Homestead Credit Refund program, the
targeting program or other programs that provide property tax relief directly from the
state to taxpayers. In addition, the City supports the 2013 legislation that requires the
Department of Revenue to notify potentially eligible homeowners of the program and
would also support legislative modifications to these programs to eliminate the
taxpayer filing requirement thereby making the tax relief payments automatic. The City
opposes property tax credit programs that reimburse local units of government for
reduced tax burden such as the former market value homestead credit system due to
the fact that the reimbursements to local units of government can be cut while the
credit to the taxpayer remains on the property tax statement. In addition, the City
opposes reinstituting Limited Market Value, a program that reduces the taxable value
of individual properties based on assessor's valuation increase. Limited Market Value
creates inequities between similar properties based solely on the valuation increase
determined by the assessor.
Background: In 2013, the legislature expanded the homeowner property tax refund
(PTR) program and renamed it the Homestead Credit Refund program. As a direct
taxpayer relief program, the Homestead Credit Refund avoids the problems with the
former Market Value Homestead Credit system where the state provided a credit on
the homeowner's property tax statement but did not always reimburse cities and
counties for the amount of the credit.
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 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.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
Position: The City of Lakeville supports the following clarifications and adjustments to
the sales tax exemptions as passed during the 2013 legislative session:
• Clarifying the eligibility of purchases by all joint powers entities and agreements so
that purchases are exempt as long as the service provided is a service primarily
provided by a governmental entity, even when there is participation by non-profit
organizations or other entities. Purchases by economic development authorities,
housing and redevelopment authorities and port authorities should also be exempt.
• Clarifying which purchases are ineligible for the exemption due to being generally
provided by a private business. This clarification should limit taxable purchases to
goods or services predominantly provided by private businesses.
• Granting an extension of the motor vehicle sales tax exemption that currently
applies to marked squad cars and firefighting apparatus to all municipal vehicles
that are used for general city functions and are provided by governmental entities.
Background: The City of Lakeville supports the reinstatement of the sales tax
exemption for purchases of goods and services made by cities that was enacted into
law in the 2013 legislative session. To ensure that citizens receive the full benefit of
this exemption, the new 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.
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
income not property value is 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
(MUST) 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 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 Improvement and 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 $ 36.9 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 — 8-10% 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 in addition
to more than $ 35.6 million of project costs financed from other sources such as
special assessments and municipal state -aid street funding.
C. MnDOT Maintenance Budget
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports MnDOT taking full responsibility for maintaining
state owned infrastructure within city limits.
Background: The state has abrogated its responsibility for maintaining major roads
throughout the state by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of
maintenance on major state roads. Cities should be compensated equitably for
providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. MnDOT should also
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.
D. 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, Minnesota State Statute Chapter 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 Minnesota State Statute Chapter 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.
E. Street Improvement Districts
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports the authority of local units of government to
establish street improvement districts and 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.
Background: Funding sources for local transportation projects are limited to the use of
Municipal State Aid (MSA), property taxes and special assessments, and 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 the use of a fair
and objective fee structure, to create a district or districts within the city where fees will
be raised but must also be spent. Street improvement districts would also aid cities
under 5,000, giving them an alternative to the property tax system and special
assessments.
F. Relieve Congestion Along 1-35 Through Lakeville
Policy: Lakeville strongly encourages MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council to find
ways to reduce congestion, improve safety and increase transit options on 1-35
through Lakeville.
Background: The Interstate - 35 corridor is one of the busiest and most heavily
travelled highway corridors 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
helped 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 commercial 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 south of Lakeville to County
Road 46 due to a shortage of lane capacity. In addition, between 2010 and 2014
hundreds of accidents have occurred along this section of Interstate 35 through
Lakeville that have included multiple fatalities. The City of Lakeville believes the
following improvements should be considered:
9
• Additional park and ride facilities should be considered. Within the next five years
the Metropolitan Council has determined the Kenrick Station park and ride facility
will be at capacity and additional parking for transit riders will be needed. The
construction of additional parking capacity will continue to help remove vehicles
from the transportation system and reduce overall roadway congestion.
Construction of a third lane from County Road 50 to County Road 70. The
construction of a third lane in this area could serve as a general purpose lane„ an
extension of the MnPass lane or as an extension of the Metro Transit BRT line
from its current terminus in Burnsville to County Road 70. Improving Interstate 35
will improve safety and capacity and 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 and the Kenrick Avenue park and ride facility
promoting continued corporate, office, industrial and commercial growth in this
area.
G. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor
Policy: Lakeville is against any State and Federal funding that supports the study,
planning, design or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor.
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. State and Federal funding of planning, design, engineering and construction of
transportation projects is limited. Therefore, priority should be given towards the
improvement and expansion of the existing road and bridge infrastructure and BRT
system.
III. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Policy: Tax Increment Financing — Cities need greater flexibility to use TIF for
community and economic development that supports a city's residents and
businesses. Further restrictions of TIF would render the tool less effective and will
hinder local efforts to support job creation, housing and redevelopment. The
Legislature should 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.
Background: The City of Lakeville has a Strategic Plan for Economic Development.
One of the goals of this plan is the development of a toolbox of incentives to help
facilitate economic development in the community. The League of Minnesota Cities
and Economic Development Association of Minnesota have adopted a similar policy
on these issues.
10
B. State Development Programs
Policv: Lakeville supports the increased State funding for Business Development
Programs approved during the 2013 Legislature.
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 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.
B. City Role in Affordable, Life Cycle and Attainable Housing
Policy: Lakeville supports affordable, life cycle and attainable housing and recognizes
that they are important to the economic and social well-being of individual communities
and the region. Funding for affordable, life cycle and attainable housing is the
responsibility of state and federal governments and should not be borne by local
property tax payers. In addition, the City opposes any mandated housing
requirements.
Background: Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable, life
cycle and attainable housing by:
Applying for state or federal funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable, life cycle and
attainable housing into new and existing neighborhoods.
Establish standards that encourage affordable, life cycle, and attainable housing.
II
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 citations for certain minor traffic offenses. Since the
passage of the 2009 administrative traffic citations law, some people have questioned
whether administrative citations for non -traffic, 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.
B. Sunday Sales
Policy: The City of Lakeville does not support any legislation that would allow off -sale
Sunday sales of alcohol.
Background: The City of Lakeville is a member of 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 have 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
12
impacting public safety so much that some counties have quickly held elections to re-
institute bans on Sunday packaged alcohol sales.
C. Recycling Refund Program for Beverage Containers
Policy: The City of Lakeville opposes any legislation that creates a recycling refund
program for beverage containers due to the following:
Legislatively, the bill could be written in a way that would require the City to serve
as a redemption center, which would require additional burdens including a
recycling service, logistics and auditing.
• Minnesota is already the second highest recycling state in the country behind
California, it would be more cost effective to encourage single sort recycling
statewide.
It will place a large financial burden on the City's liquor stores, resulting in
increased credit card fees in excess $3,000 for all stores combined.
Background: The MPCA, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was directed by the
Legislature to complete a study and make a recommendation regarding container
deposits. The directive is an attempt to achieve an 80% recycling rate in Minnesota.
The MPCA recommendation is for a $0.10 deposit to be placed on all beverage
containers. As the recommendation stands, retailers that sell containers that carry a
deposit are not required to serve as a reception center, however, that has not been
finalized.
D. 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.
E. Franchising Cable Service Providers
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports attracting multiple cable television service
providers to the City by streamlining franchising requirements and removing
unnecessary impediments to entering the market – while preserving the city's control
of its rights-of-way, local programming, and customer service standards including PEG
channel capacity, funding and institutional networks (1 -nets)..
13
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 City believes that no case has been made for state-wide franchising. 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.
F. Mandates & Local Authority
Policv: 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.
G. Elected Metropolitan Council
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports 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.
H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas
Policv: 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
14
Federal Congressional Representatives initiate legislative actions to address this
issue.
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.
J. Water Resources Management
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports efforts to review and better align water resource
management in the state, to make the system more straight -forward and easy to use
without jeopardizing water quality. The City of Lakeville further supports when the
legislature considers actions that effect water management, such as permitting and
storm water regulations, legislators first consider the impact on local government, and
include local officials in any process that would affect them as important stakeholders.
Background: The current system is burdensome, confusing and inefficient to local
officials who must work within the system to facilitate growth and development and
who are working to ensure a healthy natural environment. A bipartisan taskforce of
local, county, state, and private sector officials should be created to address the
overlapping, duplicative, and conflicting requirements in the current system and
provide a recommendation on legislation to reduce and better align agency oversight.
15