HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06.dFebruary 4, 2011 Item No.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
2011 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA POLICIES
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve the City of Lakeville 2011
Legislative Agenda Policies.
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 2011 Minnesota State Legislature gets underway, there will be many legislative initiatives and
bills considered. The adoption of legislative priorities is intended to portray the Lakeville City Council's
positions on a variety of issues. The list is not all- encompassing but represents many of the top
priorities.
These policies have been developed 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.
The City Council reviewed a draft of the 2011 Legislative Agenda Policies at their January 24 work
session. After reviewing and discussing the policies it was determined that an additional policy should
be included regarding the use of the Dan Patch Corridor for commuter rail purposes. Staff has added a
legislative policy under the transportation category that supports the current law banning the study,
planning, design or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor for commuter rail purposes.
Please find attached a copy of the 2011 Lakeville Legislative Agenda Policies which are divided into five
categories including municipal revenue and taxation, transportation, housing, economic development
and general legislation.
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is the City Council and staff doing to promote the City's positions
Members of the City Council and staff have been actively involved
attending meetings, discussing the policies and educating individuals
various legislative positions.
Supporting Information
• Copy of the City of Lakeville 2011 Legislative Agenda Policies.
// F/
i
Allyn . Kuennen, AICP
Associate Planner
as stated in the policies?
at the state and local level
and groups about Lakeville's
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
City of Lakeville
2011 Legislative Agenda Policies
Adopted February 7, 2011
City of Lakeville
2011 Legislative Agenda Policies
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation 3
A. Levy Limits
B. Market Value Homestead Credit
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
II. Transportation 5
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District
B. Transportation Funding
C. Relieve Congestion Along Cedar Avenue North of 140 Street
D. Relieve Congestion Along 1 -35 through Lakeville
E. Eliminate /Revise Speed Limit Legislation for Bus Shoulder Applications
F. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor
III. Economic Development 7
A. Tax Increment Financing
B. State Development Programs
IV. Housing 8
A. Inclusionary Housing
B. City Role in Housing
C. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
D. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements
V. General Legislation 9
A. Administrative Fines
B. Wine in Grocery
C. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests
D. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers
E. Mandates & Local Authority
F. Elected Metropolitan Council
G. Clarification of State Law Regarding Zoning Variances
Page 2/12
I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation
A. Levy Limits
Position: Lakeville strongly opposes levy limits and urges the legislature to
eliminate them to ensure cities continue to have the ability to formulate their own
local budgets.
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.
The current State imposed levy limit includes a limitation on the amount of tax
base growth allowed in calculating the levy limit. The effect of this limitation is
negative on current residential and commercial property taxpayers and creates a
permanent loss of tax base needed to accommodate providing services to
growing communities such as Lakeville.
B. Market Value Homestead Credit
Position: Lakeville supports eliminating the MVHC program and directing the
resources dedicated to the program as an aid payment directly to homeowners
and to address the State deficit.
Background: As originally established, the market value homestead credit
provides tax relief to homestead property by reducing the homeowner's property
tax bill. Local units of government are subsequently compensated by the state for
the Toss of property tax revenue under the credit. In six of the last eight years the
program has been modified by reducing the credit reimbursement payment to
over 100 cities.
Currently, the State spends approximately $337 million reimbursing counties,
cities and school districts for MVHC. Based on the $6.2 billion deficit being
projected for FY 2012 -13, as well as the significant projected state budget deficit
in FY 2013 -14, the City of Lakeville believes it would be prudent to take a serious
look at whether the State can afford the MVHC program.
Savings generated from eliminating this program could be used to help offset the
State budget deficit, as well as to aid homeowners directly on providing property
tax relief. The property tax refund program ( "circuit breaker") could be enhanced
by the savings generated from the MVHC program to provide relief to individuals
who need it most (income tested) regardless of where they live.
Page 3/12
The City of Lakeville strongly recommends that the Legislature act this session
(2011) to address the growing state deficit, as well as provide local governments
with budget planning predictability.
C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Position: Lakeville opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund metropolitan
programs since it results in a metropolitan -wide property tax increase hidden from
the public. Lakeville supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program in
its current form until such time as an appropriate replacement is developed.
Further, Lakeville supports studying the program to ensure the original intent is
being met.
D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases
Position: Lakeville supports the state reinstating the sales tax exemption for all
local government purchases.
Background: When the state was experiencing a budget shortfall in 1992, the
Legislature repealed the sales tax exemption for local government purchase.
Local governments 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. In recent sessions, there have been city specific requests for
exemptions that have been granted by the legislature including a local wastewater
treatment plant exemption and the legislature has granted several large private
exemptions including an exemption for the new Twins baseball stadium in
Minneapolis.
E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
Position: The City supports targeting property tax relief directly to individuals and
believes that property values are not the most appropriate measure of "ability to
pay" property taxes.
Background: As residential home values have rapidly escalated over the past
several years, tens of thousands of Minnesotans, particularly seniors on fixed
incomes, would not financially qualify to purchase the home in which they live.
Many of these Minnesotans live in cities that receive little or no assistance from
the State targeted at reducing property taxes.
Page 4/12
Lakeville supports additional property tax relief to those in greatest need by
directing additional dollars to the circuit breaker program. 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.
11. Transportation
A. Transit Operations and Taxing District
Position: The City of Lakeville opposes the State imposing the Transit Taxing
District upon cities. The City of Lakeville supports funding of all transit capital
expenses and operating subsidies into the State budget through the use of Motor
Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) revenues or other statewide revenue sources.
Background: The Transit Taxing District is a funding source for capital expenses
such as transit stations and buses. These expenses account for about 10% of
the cost of operating a transit system. The operating costs of the transit system
are paid by all residents of the state through other revenues such as the gas tax
and sales tax.
The transit taxing district is an unfair tax in that it taxes a small geographic area
for a service that is enjoyed by the entire state. The metropolitan transit service
area has grown beyond the seven - county region and therefore no manner of
regional taxation is sufficient to fairly distribute the cost of the capital expenses.
B. Transportation 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
Page 5/12
special assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority be granted to
municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
C. Relieve Congestion Along Cedar Avenue North of 140 Street
Policy: In addition to the Cedar Avenue BRT as a way of relieving traffic
congestion on Cedar Avenue, Lakeville strongly encourages Mn /DOT and Dakota
County to expedite efforts to relieve congestion along the northbound lanes of
Cedar Avenue north of 140 St.
Background: Currently, traffic heading out of Apple Valley becomes congested
just north of 140 where it goes from three lanes down to two lanes. It is then
relieved when it opens back up to three lanes north of Diffley Road. Mn /DOT is
currently studying options to relieve congestion along this stretch of roadway.
There is adequate capacity for an additional lane, which would complete the
highway and reduce the congestion. Heading southbound on Cedar Avenue
doesn't have nearly the congestion during peak hours because unlike the
northbound lanes, it's three lanes the entire way. Regardless of the solution, this
bottleneck in traffic needs to be resolved.
D. Relieve Congestion Along 1 -35 Through Lakeville
Policy: Lakeville strongly encourages Mn /DOT and the Metropolitan Council to
find ways to reduce congestion on 1 -35 through Lakeville.
Background: The 1 -35 interstate corridor is the busiest, most heavily travelled
highway corridor in Minnesota. Significant efforts have been made to reduce
congestion and improve traffic flow along this vital transportation roadway. Transit
improvements made under the Urban Partnership Agreement will help to 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.
Mn /DOT is currently constructing an expansion of the northbound MnPass /HOT
lane in Burnsville from the current starting point at the Burnsville Crosstown to the
1 -35 split. This expansion project will reduce congestion and improve traffic flow
along this corridor.
But there is also the need to expand the capacity of 1 -35 in Lakeville. Today there
is congestion from the southern border of Lakeville to County Road 46 due to a
shortage of lane capacity. The Federal Highway Administration has commented
previously that additional lanes are warranted along this stretch of highway.
Improving this condition will 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
Page 6/12
advantage of the newly completed County Road 70/1 -35 interchange promoting
continued corporate, office, industrial and commercial growth in this area.
E. Eliminate /Revise Speed Limit Legislation for Bus Shoulder Applications
Policy: A change in this legislation, to increase speed limits for bus shoulder lane
facilities, could maintain safety and provide for a quicker, more reliable trip for
buses using bus shoulder lanes along Cedar Avenue.
Background: The use of bus shoulders by buses in the Twin Cities is currently
limited to 15 miles per hour over adjacent traffic speed or 35 miles per hour
maximum. This restriction could result in bus speeds for buses using the
engineered bus shoulders on Cedar Avenue BRT to be traveling less than posted
speeds in non - congested areas, or create a desire to weave in and out of slow
lanes.
F. 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.
III. Economic Development
A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Policy: Lakeville supports adding more time to the TIF flexibility given in the 2010
Jobs -State Stimulus bill. Current law requires that projects that utilize these new
flexible provisions of the TIF statutes be under construction by July 1, 2011.
Background: The City of Lakeville has recently adopted a 2011 -13 Strategic Plan
for Economic Development. One of the goals of this plan is to develop a toolbox
of incentives to help facilitate economic development in the community.
Page 7/12
Extending the TIF provisions contained in the 2010 Jobs — State Stimulus Bill
would make this financing tool more feasible. The League of Minnesota Cities
and Economic Development Association of Minnesota have adopted a similar
policy on this issue
B. State Development Programs
Policy: Lakeville supports continued State funding of the Business Development
Programs such as 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. Additional programs and tools similar to the
sales tax credits that were provided to the Goodrich project in Burnsville through
special legislation should be adopted state -wide and administered by DEED.
Background: 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. In order to continue to facilitate this
type of development in Lakeville, additional sources of financing will be required.
IV. Housing
A. Inclusionary Housing
Policy: Lakeville supports the location of affordable housing in residential and
mixed -use neighborhoods throughout a city. However, the City does not support
passage of a mandatory inclusionary housing law that would require a certain
percentage of units in all new housing developments to be affordable to
households at a particular income level because these units can't be produced
without a deep developer subsidy or cross - subsidization from the other houses in
the development.
Background: The Metropolitan Council, in creating its affordable housing targets,
must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Metro
Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing
through direct financial assistance and /or advocating for additional resources
through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
B. 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.
Page 8/12
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.
C. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
Policy: Lakeville supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes that
they are important to the economic and social well being of individual
communities and the region. Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of
state and federal governments and should not be borne by local property tax
payers.
Background: Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable
and lifecycle housing by:
• Applying for state or federal funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
• Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into
new and existing neighborhoods.
• Establish standards that encourage affordable housing.
D. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements
Policy: Lakeville should consider adopting a position on the 2012 International
Residential Code (IRC) that contains a provision that requires fire sprinkler
systems to be installed in single family and two family homes. The State of
Minnesota will be reviewing 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.
Background: 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.
Page 9/12
As a result, these organizations do not support adopting a new building code that
requires sprinklers for one and two family dwellings.
V. General Legislation
A. Administrative Fines
Policy: The City supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for
regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher level state
traffic and criminal offenses. Lakeville also endorses a fair hearing process before
a disinterested third party.
Background: Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have
met with ever increasing cost to local units of government and the use of
administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs. Lakeville supports the use
of administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes,
zoning codes, health codes, minor moving violations up to 10 mph over the limit
and public safety and nuisance ordinances.
B. Wine in Grocery
Policy: Lakeville, along with a coalition of private and public organizations,
including the Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association, opposes the WIG
initiative to greatly expand the number of outlets allowed to sell alcohol.
Background: The current laws in Minnesota provide reasonable convenience to
consumers while protecting youth from access to alcoholic beverages. Allowing
the sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores will provide easy opportunity for
access by youth.
C. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Diseases and Pests
Policy: Lakeville supports funding for a state matching grant program that would
assist cities with meeting the costs of addressing shade tree disease and pest
problems. Additionally, the City would support funding the current ReLeaf
program with an appropriation that can better address the needs of managing
urban forests across the state.
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
Page 10/12
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.
D. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers
Policy: Lakeville supports changes to the existing federal or state cable
franchising statutes that fully maintain local authority and assure that all providers
meet community needs and interests, including PEG channel capacity, funding
and institutional networks (l -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 measure designed to prevent economic, racial or other
discriminatory redlining or "cherry- picking" that could result in creation of a "digital
divide" within the community.
E. Mandates & Local Authority
Policy: Lakeville opposes statutory changes which erode local control and
authority or create mandated additional tasks requiring new or added local costs
without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded
mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities' ability to fund
traditional service needs.
F. Elected Metropolitan Council
Policy: Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open
process that includes an opportunity for local governments and other stakeholders
to provide meaningful input. Council members should understand and be
responsive to the districts they represent while also serving the best interests of
the region. Metropolitan Council members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
Background: The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency serving the
Twin Cities seven - county metropolitan area and providing essential services to
Page 11/12
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.
G. Clarification of State Law Regarding Zoning Variances
Policy: The City of Lakeville supports legislative action to provide a more flexible
statutory standard for municipalities to utilize in considering variance requests.
Background: In June of 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court decided
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka and overturned twenty years of precedent
on the criteria by which a variance can be granted. In the Krummenacher case,
the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the definition of "undue hardship" and
held that the question in determining whether a variance should be granted is not
whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable
use of the property in the absence of the variance.
The Minnesota Supreme Court decision in the Krummenacher case significantly
limits a city's authority to approve variance requests only to circumstances where
the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. In their
ruling on the Krummenacher variance, the State Supreme Court in effect rejected
the standard that cities have relied on when considering variance requests that
resulted from a 1989 Court of Appeals decision allowing cities to grant variances
in circumstances where the property owner would like to use the property in a
reasonable manner that is prohibited by ordinance.
Any proposed legislative action should allow each city to establish their own
specific ordinance criteria for granting variances provided it is consistent with
State Statute.
Page 12/12