HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.a. Legislative Position StatementsCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENTS
AGENDA SECTION:
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
AGENDA NO—
ITEM #
ATTACHMENTS: POLICIES (DRAFT FORM)
APB VED Y:
The Dakota County Administrators, working through the City Councils and
County Board annually present legislative positions on issues of concern to
cities for consideration by the legislature.
Attached is the draft of those position statements for the 1992 session.
It is our hope that we can reach agreement of support for these positions
so that a united front of support can be presented to the legislature. If
changes or suggestions for changes are provided, we should note those to
carry back to the joint city/county group before their final adoption.
A breakfast is scheduled for Friday, February 14 the at which these
position statements will be formally presented to the Dakota County
legislative delegation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to support the legislative position statements as drafted for
action in 1992.
COUNCIL ACTION:
City of
BURNSV1LLE
``� 100 Civic Center Parkway ° Burnsville, Minnesota 55337-3817 (612) 895-4400
� pN p 7 1992
DATE: January 6, 1992
TO: Dakota County Staff
Dakota County Administrators/Managers
Dakota County Township Clerks
FROM: Jill Shorba, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Dakota County Managers Meeting
Thursday, January 30, 1992 - 10:00 P.M.
Apple Valley City Hall
On Thursday, January 30, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., there will be 'a meeting
of the Dakota County Managers/Administrators Group. The meeting will be held at
Apple Valley City Hall (14200 Cedar Avenue).
AGENDA
1. Finalize 1992 Legislative Positions
Enclosed are the final drafts of the 1992 legislative positions.
Following the last Administrators meeting, changes were made in the
following policies:
Drug Education and Enforcement
The policy was changed to include a request for a $3.00 per capita
levy for County investigation, prosecution, court processing and
community corrections services (similar to last year's policy).
° Local Government Finance
The paragraph on the Flat Property Tax Rate was removed and
corrections were made to the paragraph on the Local Government Trust
Fund.
° Regional Airport Policy
The first paragraph under the "Recommendations" section was revised
because not all cities support the "dual -track approach." A more
generic statement was inserted.
Please review these positions with your Board/Councils prior to the January 30
meeting. Minor changes can still be made at that meeting.
The breakfast with Legislators is tentatively set for Friday, February 14, at
7:30 a.m. Please check this date with your Board/Councils and notify me as soon
as possible if there is a problem.
Dakota County Staff
Dakota County Administrators/Managers
Dakota County Township Clerks
January 6, 1992
Page 2
** In conjunct ion with the policy on Drug Education and Enforcement, I will
be surveying cities to determine if you received any of the $1.00 per
capita which school districts were authorized to levy in 1991. I will
telephone you next week.
2. Miscellaneous
Please contact me if there is another item you would like placed on the
agenda.
Please try to attend the meeting so plans for the legislative breakfast can be
finalized.
JS/mc
Enclosures
Dakota County Managers
1992 LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
Special Service District Legislation
Transportation Finance Alternatives
Comprehensive Solid Waste Legislation
Drug Education and Enforcement Legislation
Local Government Finance
Hazardous Materials Response
Light Rail Transit
Regional Airport Policy
Land Use Planning Legislation
Road Access Charge and Road Utility Fee
Franchise Laws - Telephone Companies
1/3/92
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT LEGISLATION
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 428A allows municipalities to establish Special
Service Districts for the purposes of providing levels of public services
above and beyond the normal level otherwise provided throughout the city. The
purpose of these service districts is to recognize that certain types of
property require certain additional levels of public services that should be
financed from the general fund property tax of the city. Examples of such
services include but are not limited to additional street lighting, parking
lot and street maintenance, landscaping, signage, refuse collection, security,
transportation services, as well as advertising and promotion. A service
charge would be levied on the property within the boundaries of the district
to pay for the desired services. Consequently, only property inside the
district boundaries would receive benefit from the services.
M.S. Chapter 428A is standard "boilerplate" language regarding speciai service
districts. Each proposed district must be approved as enabling legislation
for the requesting city. Once the enabling legislation has been approved, the
city must adopt a local ordinance establishing the district. The statute is
very specific about the hearing and publication process that needs to occur
before the district can be approved. If 35 percent of the landowners in the
district file an objection prior to the ordinance's effective date, the
ordinance is void. All residential property within the district is exempt
from paying any of the service charge levied by the city.
An annual hearing must also be held before approval of a levy to support the
future year's work or program. The governing body approves the levy by
resolution. Service charge levies are not included in levy limit
calculations. The city may bond for district improvements and pay for them by
pledging the annual service charge levy. The governing body may appoint an
advisory board or act as the board for the district.
Twenty-five (25) percent of all landowners and landowners who represent 25
percent of the property value must file a petition requesting (or approving) a
proposal prior to council action; the same 25 percent plus 25 percent ratio is
needed prior to approval of a service charge and levy. It can be vetoed by a
petition of 35 percent of the landowners or owners who represent 35 percent of
the property value.
Action which would approve other types of service charges other than a levy
are also subject to a petition of 25 percent of the businesses in the
district. If 35 percent of the business owners object to the service charges,
the adoption of these service fees would be voided.
The service fee vetoes or petition provisions do not apply to succeeding years
once a service charge has been approved and not challenged in the first year.
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT LEGISLATION
Position Statement
POSITION
Special service districts provide the opportunity to make public improvements
to specific areas of a community and generates the necessary finances directly
from those who will benefit without the restrictions of using special
assessments. The service charge is totally a local option tool by the
governing body and the amount of the service charge is determined by the
business proprietors and property owners based on the type of service and
level of service they desire to have. The hearing and petition process
provides adequate assurances of citizen participation and flexible
opportunities to create, modify, and repeal the district and its provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 428A should be amended to repeal the requirement of
the approval of enabling legislation for special service districts. The
establishment of such districts should begin with the local adoption process.
JUSTIFICATION
Because special service districts have no taxing or spending impact on persons
or property outside the boundaries of the district, and because the provisions
of the districts are directed entirely by those being levied and receiving
benefit from the services, legislative approval is simply not necessary. The
use of special service districts recognizes the need of areas within
communities that require additional and unique types and levels of public
services. Because legislative requests for special service districts
typically contain standardized language and are of only local consequence,
they are frequently neglected during the legislative process. Finally, all
communities should have an equal opportunity to secure special service
district approval.
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE ALTERNATIVES
Position Statement
Background
The distribution of County State Aid Funds is set by law and the continuation
of the constitutional formula providing 29% to County State Aid jurisdictions
should be maintained. The breakdown of this 29% County share between the
various counties is based on 50% need, 30% center line miles, 10% motor
vehicle registrations and 10% equalization.
Many transportation issues remain unresolved. Long term funding sources need
to be established whereby the revenue sources are dependable and distributed
more fairly to reflect population density and growth patterns. The County
Board supports and recommends legislation, consistent with the Metropolitan
Inter County Association positions, which would improve this situation.
Recommended changes include:
1. The County state -aid screening board make-up should be changed to
fourteen (14) members. The municipal approval process of CSAH system
mileage changes should be revised. The allocation formula should be
changed to use lane miles instead of centerline miles. Changes in
State -aid distribution must not be a substitute for additional county
transportation funding.
2. New transportation funding will only be supported in conjunction with an
amended distribution formula for the new funds.
3. A County transportation fund program based on users' fees including, but
not limited to: 1) Motor vehicle registration fees; 2) Motor vehicle
excise tax; 3) Gasoline tax; 4) Wheelage tax; and 5) Non-traditional
user fee revenue such as parking space and development impact fees.
4. Bridge bonding an expanded reauthorization of the State Bridge Bonding
Program at a level of funding sufficient to:
A. Replace, rehabilitate or renovate deficient bridges (including
bridges under twenty feet in length ) at roadway crossings with
streams, rivers, railroads or other roadways by dedicating funds
for the total cost of projects, by dedicating funds for the "local
match in federally funded projects, and by dedicating funds for
participation in projects under other funding formulas, and
B. Construct new bridges (including bridges under twenty feet in
Length) along new roadway corridors intersecting streams, rivers
or railroads; and construct new bridges where existing or new
roadways intersect and interchanges or bridge crossing are
warranted by dedicating funds for the total cost of projects, by
dedicating funds for the "local match" in federally funded
projects, and by dedicating funds for participation in projects
under other funding formulas.
5. Uses of the highway fund - opposes any additional diversion from the
highway fund for non -transit or non -highway uses.
TRANSPORTATION FINANCE,,ALTERNATIVES
Position Statement
6. MVET paid by local governments - opposes the payment of motor vehicle
excise taxes by local units of government.
7. Highway jurisdiction - supports the planned and mutually agreeable
jurisdiction changes of highways. funding for future improvements and
maintenance, and the condition of roadways at the time of transfer are
high priority considerations. Jurisdictional changes must not be
considered a substitute for additional transportation funding.
8. Railroad abandonment - supports prior review and study of potential rail
line abandonment to determine the impacts on local economies. Counties
that contain regional rail authorities should have the right of first
refusal to purchase rail line in question.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should change the highway fund distribution process as
proposed in the legislative position described above.
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
Since March 1991 all single family homes in Dakota County have had an
opportunity to recycle (at the curb) newspaper, aluminum/tin cans, glass,
plastic bottles with a neck, and corrugated cardboard. All multi -family
buildings also are recycling the items listed above. In addition, some
haulers are collecting waste oil, lead acid batteries, mixed office paper, and
magazines at the curb. Approximately 1,000 tons per month of recyclables are
delivered to the Dakota County Collection Center. The County also completed a
commercial recycling strategy in early 1991 and has begun implementation.
A major task in 1991 will be to design a solid waste management plan to
recycle 35% of the County's waste by 1993 as required under SCORE and 50% by
the year 2000 as outlined in the Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management
Policy Plan. It is expected that solid waste management will continue to be
one of the major environmental issues for Dakota County in 1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. There should be no major statutory changes for the metropolitan solid
waste management system.
Government and private industry are fine tuning their collection
and processing systems to both expand the system and make it more
economical. Major changes could disrupt this system.
It is important to allow individual counties and cities an
opportunity to implement a recycling program which meets the
currently mandated recycling goals and also reflects the
individual characteristics and preferences of their communities.
Additional legislation should take place only if these goals are
not met. Any SCOPE (Select Committee on Packaging and
Environment) recommendation should be considered in this context.
2. Current funding mechanisms and levels for recycling and abatement
efforts should be maintained or expanded.
SCORE monies should be continued/expanded and should be
distributed for abatement purposes only.
Any new requirements by the State for recycling activities should
provide comparable funding.
3. While it is important to expand the collection system, markets must be
available and industry should be encouraged. Because of the current
economy, market prices for materials continue to fall.
Existing subsidies on virgin materials should be evaluated.
The Metropolitan Council and the Office of Waste Management should
work jointly on regional market development efforts.
4. Existing legislation outlining battery manufacturers' responsibilities
should be enforced by the State.
DRUG EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
During the 1990 legislative session, special legislation was passed on behalf
of a group of cities in the northwestern Metro area. The legislation allowed
those cities (Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, and Coon Rapids)
continuing authority to levy up to $2.00 per capita annually, above their levy
limits for drug enforcement. Specifically, the money can be used to pay
salaries and benefits for peace officers under a joint powers agreement whose
primary responsibilities are to investigate controlled substance crimes or to
teach DARE curricula in schools.
In 1991, the Legislature provided that school districts should have the
authority to levy an additional $1.00 per capita for drug education,
enforcement, and police liaison. The money was to be a pass-through to city
and county authorities. The new law has left school districts in the
uncomfortable position of deciding who will get what. Conflicts have arisen
because some districts (accustomed to per -student levies) have difficulty in
conveying funds raised by per -capita levies to (for instance) support a DARE
class in a parochial school. Fundamentally, schools are not in the drug
enforcement or police business; the new state levy has proved awkward at best.
RECOMMENDATION
The drug enforcement/education levy of $2.00 per capita should be specific to
cities, in the same manner as the special legislation granted to the
northwestern suburbs in 1990. Also a $3.00 per capita levy for County
investigation, prosecution, court processing, and community Correction
Services should be introduced and supported as a Dakota County special bill.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
State and federal law, budget deficits, and increased federalism have combined
to create a crisis in local government finance. Mandates and customer demands
for services have expanded the expenditures necessary while the modification
and removal of such revenue sources as local government aid and homestead and
agricultural credits have limited local governments' abilities to maintain,
much less expand, these services. This problem is further exacerbated by
communities experiencing rapid growth as they face the challenges of managing
growth issues.
The continued application of levy limits has further diminished the ability of
cities and counties to raise the necessary revenues through the consent of
their citizens. The complexity of the property tax system and aid
distribution formulas for cities, counties, and school districts has served to
create further inequities among local units of government. Modifications of
the property tax system are a necessary and prudent means of assuring the most
directly responsible levels of government will be able to meet the needs
required by their enabling legislation, demanded by their citizens, and
mandated by other authorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Property Tax Reform -
While property tax reform has been a much hailed goal of each legislative
session, the results have been disappointing at best. Local units of
government in Dakota County support the following initiatives in property tax
reform:
I. All significant changes should be phased in so cities and counties can
adequately plan for needed adjustments.
2. Local government aid or an equivalent program of sharing state aid with
cities and counties should remain an essential component of the property
tax system.
3. While reducing the number of property tax classifications and tax
capacity rates, the income -adjusted circuit breaker and renters' credit
program should be expanded to reduce the regressivity of the property
tax.
4. Mid -year cuts in Local Government Aid should not occur but only allowed
to change for each year. Once budgets are adopted, levies certified,
and LGA amounts are committed to local units of government, they should
not be allowed to change for the same year.
5. All legislation mandating functions to local units of government should
contain a fiscal note listing the costs to local government and payments
made from the State tothelocal unit of government as compensation for
mandate compliance.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Position Statement
Beyond property tax reform, there are several issues that need to be
addressed:
Levy Limits
The Legislature should honor its commitment to repeal levy limit laws by 1992,
especially in light of the 1990 reductions in state aid to cities and new
truth in taxation requirements. Removal of such limits would enhance local
accountability and allow cities to plan for and respond to changing financial
conditions, particularly declines in federal and state aid. If the State
fails to provide compensation for mandated programs, the repeal of such limits
is even more important. Levy limits do not reflect the willingness of
citizens to pay for specific local services. Such a repeal would eliminate
the need for special levies. The population growth of communities
precipitates increased costs to provide the same level of services. In order
to finance this increased level of services, cities should be able to utilize
the growth factor in revenue calculation. Until levy limits are removed,
special levy authority currently granted to certain cities for drug control
programs such as DARE and Southwest Metro Drug Task Force, should be extended
to all cities without seeking enabling legislation.
LG ACA
At the minimum, LGA should be increased annually to keep pace with the rising
costs of providing local government services. Even if LGA to cities is
sacrificed, the HACA program should remain in effect because it represents
direct property tax relief to homeowners. LGA should be distributed among
cities in a way which alleviates the problems inherent with reliance on the
property tax. The ability of cities to raise revenue from property taxes
varies greatly. LGA, as a complementary revenue source for cities, is
necessary because a city's ability to raise revenue from the property tax does
not necessarily coincide with the cost of the services which the city must
provide to its citizens. Finally, the LGA formula should reflect both the
•individual city's need and its local revenue -raising capacity.
In the event the State budget crisis and efforts to deal with it require the
reduction of LGA/HACA, such action should be accompanied by an immediate
removal of levy limits and/or the authority to levy an additional amount equal
to the difference between a local government's certified LGA/HACA allocation
and its amended allocation. Moreover, a joint study of the challenges
presented by the difference between State and local fiscal years and possible
solutions to these challenges should be undertaken to prevent future
ramifications of future budget deficits.
In addition, Dakota County cities have been substantially shorted in state aid
in recent years based on the U.S. census figures. State aids are based on
estimates provided by the Metropolitan Council and, due to the County's rapid
growth, those estimates (for Dakota County) have been consistently low.
Consideration should be given to means of improving the accuracy of these
estimates in the future or providing for adjustment of underpayments in the
event estimates can be effectively challenged by special census results or
other means.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Position Statement
Local Government Trust Fund
The 1991 Legislature modified the local government aid formula by raising the
State sales tax by .5 percent and dedicating 2 cents of the total State sales
tax to local government aid by the creation of a local government trust fund.
The long-term integrity of this trust fund should be maintained by ensuring
that revenues be dedicated specifically to local government and not be
diverted from this trust fund to the State's general fund or any other State
appropriation not related to local government.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
In 1986 Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act as
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Congress
enacted this law to help local communities protect public health and plan for
chemical emergencies. To implement Title III, Congress required each state to
appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), and this Commission then
established LocalEmergency Planning Committees (LEPC).
Although these Local Planning Committees exist, there is no statewide coordination
for hazardous materials response. At a local level, the development of hazardous
materials response capabilities is usually dependent on city size and the perceived
threat of hazardous materials incidents. It is often too expensive to adequately
provide hazardous materials response at the local level. New federal law requires
all personnel responding to hazardous materials emergencies to be properly trained
and equipped. These standards require the vast majority of fire departments to
provide additional extensive training or be in violation of the law. It is
impossible at the city or county level to meet these training requirements within a
reasonable cost.
One alternative is to pool resources so every jurisdiction does not have to develop
and maintain specialized hazardous response teams. Regionally organized response
teams are the most effective and economical approach for responding to hazardous
materials emergencies. In 1990, the legislature passed a law requiring the
Commissioner of Public Safety to plan a statewide system of response to hazardous
materials release emergencies. An advisory council was established to assist the
Commissioner and consists of members from the fire service, the public, business,
and industry, and a representative from local government. This plan was submitted
January 1, 1991. Based on this plan, legislation was introduced which would
establish a response system, standards for response and a fee structure to support
the system. This legislastion (H.F. 660 and S.F. 738) is pending further action in
the legislature in the 1992 Session.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Authorize the establishment of regional hazardous materials response teams to
provide response to all communities within a district.
2. Designate a central state organization to establish, direct and coordinate a
hazardous materials response system.
Under the direction of the Department of Public Safety
This organization would provide consistent standards and operating
procedures and would insure proper response throughout the state.
3. The State should support funding to cover the training, equipment, and
operational costs necessary to develop regional hazardous materials teams
which meet Federal and State safety and training regulations.
4. A funding approach should be developed which places the responsibility for
continued funding on the generators of the hazards.
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
The State Legislature mandated that the Regional Transit Board's Joint Light
Rail Transit Committee, comprised of county regional railroad authorities,
prepare a Light Rail Transit Coordination Plan. The Plan identifies
organizational and implementation methods for light rail transit in the
metropolitan area. The plan includes a ten-year schedule and budget for LRT
implementation. The ten-year schedule presents the costs for implementing the
corridor staging priorities adopted by the Regional Transit Board in 1990.
The staging priorities for corridors in Dakota County include.the St. Paul
south to TH 110 in Group B and an extension of I -35W to TH 13 in Group C.
The Joint LRT Advisory Committee has recommended a one cent sales tax for
transportation purposes with one-half cent dedicated to LRT construction.
Regardless of the source funding for LRT, the County should receive a "fair
share" of any new broad-based funding source for transportation.
The LRT Coordination Plan will also identify the lead agency for implementing
LRT in the region. The County Regional Railroad Authorities have taken the
lead in preparing plans and preliminary designs for light rail transit. Under
current legislation, the cities maintain an approval authority over
preliminary and final designs for LRT.
If construction of light rail transit occurs, it should be implemented by a
Joint Powers comprised of regional railroad authorities, state and regional
agencies. The Joint Powers Board should also contract with MN/DOT for
construction of LRT if located within a State right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If a regional source of funding is approved for LRT, there should also
be broad based funding for other transportation needs (i.e., road
improvement) for counties that will not be served by LRT in the future.
If LRT is implemented in the
comprised of county regional
role in the implementation.
metropolitan area, a Joint Powers Board
railroad authorities should play a lead
- Support a continuation of the approval authority by municipalities for
preliminary and final design of LRT.
Support the involvement of MN/DOT in the construction of LRT in State
right-of-ways.
REGIONAL AIRPORT POLICY
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
The Twin Cities Metropolitan region has actively debated noise and adequacy
issues for almost twenty-five years as they related to.the Minneapolis/St.
Paul airport. At the direction of the Legislature, the Metropolitan Council
undertook a study of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to
consider its adequacy to meet traffic demands in the future and the
environmental capacity (e.g., noise) of the community to coexist with the
airport. Following eighteen months of study, the Council's Airport Adequacy
Task Force recommended that the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports
Commission implement a "dual -track approach" that includes enhancement of
capacity at the current site and land banking in anticipation of a replacement
airport should future air traffic demands warrant it. In 1989, the dual -track
approach recommended by the Adequacy Study was incorporated into legislation
which established time lines for various tasks.
A number of groups and studies have proposed alternatives for the enhancement
of capacity of the current airport which could have direct or indirect effects
on Dakota County. These enhancements include the extension of existing
runways, addition of runways and a reorientation of departure routes to the
south and southeast over Burnsville, Eagan, and other parts of Dakota County.
The Airport Adequacy Task Force also concluded that there is a reasonable risk
that the current airport's physical capacity will be exceeded within five to
ten years. To meet demand for ten to twenty years, while land banking and
environmental reviews are conducted for a potential relocation, additional
capacity may be developed at the current airport. By 1996, a decision will be
made to either construct an additional runway at the existing site or to y
implement a relocation. The addition of a new north -south runway immediately
adjacent to Cedar Avenue, would introduce additional flights over Burnsville,
Eagan and other parts of Dakota County. The addition of a third parallel
runway would bring additional flights over Mendota Heights, Eagan, Mendota,
Lilydale and other parts of Dakota County. Noise impacts are difficult to
predict because the quieter "Stage III" generation aircraft are expected to be
integrated in airline fleets during this same time period, but there will be
overflights over much of northern Dakota County.
The dual -track airport planning process presents a public policy dilemma in
which all costs and benefits must be considered. Economic benefits to Dakota
County from proximity to an airport could be lost, shifted or gained in a
relocation, depending on the location of a new site. Moreover, the
uncertainty of relocation could cause developer reluctance to invest in either
existing or potential Dakota,County locations. The Metropolitan Council has
developed its guidelines for reviewing land use changes in new airport search
areas. These guidelines will set the stage for city, county and township
involvement in the search/siting process.
Dakota County has the entire spectrum of land uses within its boundaries, from
urban to suburban to rural. Defining "acceptable land use" within the
designated search areas and as potential sites may adversely affect many
individuals and units of government in which these areas are located within or
adjacent to the existing airport and selected sites.
The Metropolitan Council has already indicated that Southern Dakota County,
including the cities of Rosemount, Coates and Vermillion and the townships of
Empire, Vermillion, Nininger and Ravenna, is the preferred search area.
REGIONAL AIRPORT POLICY
Position Statement
RECOMMENDATIONS
Regional airport planning is a very important issue for all of Dakota County.
Unfortunately, the differential impacts of the various options result in
different positions on the part of the various local government entities.
The regional airport planning process should include consideration for effects
on residents, landowners and existing business, must be as encompassing as
possible, and should include social as well as economic issues. The
relocation of the airport would change forever the rural/agricultural nature
of Southern Dakota County while expansion of the current airport will
dramatically expand the impact area in Northern Dakota County. In addition,
any changes may affect the northern areas which have experienced development
and growth because of the existing airport. Any decision must also consider
the enormous costs associated with any alternative and the sources for the
funds to cover these costs. Consideration of a new site should also be
contingent on five conditions:
1. Any enhancement of the capacity at the existing airport must be
accompanied by an equally zealous commitment to the mitigation of
possible aircraft noise consequences. Any new or changed distribution
of aircraft noise in Dakota County should reflect and be firmly guided
by existing community comprehensive plans and settlement patterns.
2. Site selection and protection decisions must be based on the total
spectrum of socio/economic issues and must protect the rights of local
governments, landowners and residents. The "alternative environmental
review process" being utilized by the Metropolitan Council must address
this broader spectrum of issues. Existing local governments should have
a partnership role in development and administration of a clear,
decisive policy which allows local governments to:
A. Request boundary changes of the final search area or to "opt out"
of the search area.
B. Request variances to the land use requirements and strict
interpretations of the land use guidelines for "search" and "site"
areas.
3. The economic feasibility study of a new airport should be completed
prior to holding land in reserve for airport reconstruction.
4. Funds should be provided to Dakota County and its local governments to
evaluate the impact of the potential airport relocation on the County.
5. Accelerate the decision to expand or relocate the airport to relieve the
uncertainty placed on the landowners in or adjacent to the search area
and existing airport.
LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
Proposed legislation, which would have superseded the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act and created a uniform land planning law for cities, towns and
counties, was introduced in the 1987 through 1990 legislative sessions. It
would have had an overall negative impact, and it did not pass.
FEATURE
A special AMM task force worked out a compromise piece of legislation that
effectively unified planning law while avoiding the problems inherent in the
earlier versions.
RECOMMENDATION
The AMM proposal should be supported providing it adheres to the following
principles:
1. The legislation must not conflict with the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act.
2. The authority of local elected officials to make land use decisions must
not be reduced.
3. The flexibility in managing land use planning at the local level must
not be reduced.
4. Sufficient time must be granted in implementing the revised law to
minimize the costs to cities in updating local codes and ordinances.
ROAD ACCESS CHARGE AND ROAD UTILITY FEE
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
1. Impact Fee
Local governments are using a variety of techniques to privately finance
public infrastructure. One such technique is access fees. An access
fee can be defined as "single payment (s) required to be made by
builders or developers at the time of development approval and
calculated to be the proportionate share of the capital cost of
providing major facilities (arterial roads, interceptor sewers, sewage
treatment plants, regional parks, etc.) to that development."
Road access charges are currently not legal in the State of Minnesota.
Attempts have been made in the last few years to pass legislation in the
Minnesota Legislature that would enable cities and counties to impose a
road access charge to all new developments. Proposals have been made in
the past that would allow cities to assess a fee up to $750.00 per
single family home against all new developments based upon the number of
vehicle trips that the project generated. This legislation was
introduced in the 1987 and 1988 legislative sessions.
Legislation allowing cities to collect a road access charge would
provide cities with a much needed additional source of funding to help
keep the arterial and collector street systems closer to fulfilling
their transportation needs. By collecting a road access charge at up to
$750.00 per single family home for new or expanded land use, it spreads
the cost of part of the arterial/collector street system over a larger
area of a city since the new or expanded land use would pay regardless
of whether it was actually located adjacent to the arterial/collector
street. The cities of Dakota County, facing extreme growth and fiscal
stress, need the additional revenue that would become available to it as
a result of a road access fee.
2. Utility Fee
Another financing technique used by cities to finance infrastructure and
associated operating costs is a utility fee. This fee is in common use
for sanitary sewer and water and is increasingly being used for storm
sewer. There is no statutory authority to impose such a fee for
construction of streets.
The Minnesota Nouse Transportation Committee is considering a proposal
to authorise cities to impose a street utility fee to finance
construction of arterial and collector streets. Unlike the impact fee,
this would be a periodic charge imposed on all developed property. This
would be an excellent source of revenue to construct badly needed
arterial and collector streets that otherwise cannot be financed.
RECOMMENDATION
Support the passage of legislation that would enable cities and counties to
impose a road access charge and/or a street utility fee.
TELEPHONE FRANCHISE
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
Minnesota Statutes (Chapters 300 and 2168) require utility providers to obtain
permission through a franchise granted by the city for the installation and
operation of utility service infrastructure within a municipality's right-of-
way or other public grounds. In addition, the statute further authorizes
cities to impose fees on these utilities to a maximum of five percent on gross
revenues generated within the city. Franchise agreements give authority to
cities to control and regulate the activities of the utility within city -owned
right-of-way.
Typically, municipalities have a much higher concern for public health,
safety, and general welfare concerns than do utility service providers. As a
result, the city must be concerned with the maintenance, financing, and
general upkeep of streets or right-of-way. Since franchise agreements grant
permission for the installation and operation of utility infrastructure, the
city has the authority through the agreement to require such activity conform
to pre -determined construction, engineering, planning, and development
standards set forth by the municipality.
While M.S. Chapter 300 specifically includes telephone and telegraph companies
as utility service providers subject to franchise requirements, M.S. Chapter
237.16 prescribes that telephone and telegraph operations are under the
exclusive regulatory authority of the Public Utilities Commission. Therefore,
cities have no legal foundation to impose a franchise agreement. Case law
exists that would lend legitimacy to this position. The city's only
regulatory claim addresses the placement of poles and wires. This statutory
contradiction has caused the PUC to advise telephone and telegraph companies
not to enter into franchise agreements with cities. Ironically, the PUC has
regulatory authority over gas/electric utilities just as it does
telephone/telegraph service providers. Chapter 237.16 would appear to give
the PUC additional authority insulating telephone/telegraph companies from
local franchiseagreementsthat it does not grant any other utility.
It is simply not appropriate for the law to require that virtually all utility
providers have city franchise agreements with the exception of one; especially
since the issues related to utility infrastructure in right-of-way are
identical. The problem becomes more acute if and when telephone and telegraph
companies assume control over cable television transmission lines as appears
to be the technological trend of the industry. This would undermine cable
franchise agreements and essentially make them void.
RECOMMENDATION
Minnesota Statutes 237.16 should be amended to delete the intended exemption
of telephone and telegraph companies from franchise provisions and bring it
into conformance with M.S. Chapter 300.