Loading...
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.