Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.b. Legislative Issues Package a � • f P� BQX 510 j�� � 2875-145TH ST. W. /� �`A/� RpSEMQUNT.MINNESOTA 5506$ llSQ I I'E�V��� 612-A23-4411 '��� � Q T0: Mayor, Napper V � Councilmembers Klassen Oxborough Willcox W�PPermann FROM: Stephan Jilk DATE: December 29, 1989 RE: 1990 Legislative Issues Statements Attached please find the Position Statements on several issues for consideration by the 1990 state legislature. These issues and proposed position statements come to you through discussion held at staff level by Dakota County cities and Dakota County staff. Each year city and county administrators discuss issues they feel are important to their cities and Dakota County as a whole and then work to develop position statements on the issues to present to state legislators which represent Dakota County. The positions will be reviewed by all city councils and the county board before they are finalized and presented at a breakfast meeting on February 2 to the local Iegislators. All issues which cities and Dakota County feel should be addressed are not considered in this manner. Many issues relevant or important to just one city or just Dakota County may be addressed by the individual party. The approach taken here is one that allows an entire county, represented individually through its cities and as a whole by the county, to present a legislative package" to its legislative dele�ation to consider„and, to be considered as a ''united approach ' by those constituents they represent. Please review these issues and position statements . I will expand on them for further discussion and hope for approvai at the meeting. dw f`bV 15 '�'9 11�45 DAKUTH l:lY i Y h'M1fbltrFiL utvtLt�t'�•ittr� ' �" '- : � � • DAKQTA Ct�tlN'TY i�IANA&ERS • Positian Statement COt�l7Y StATE AID QISTRIBUTION FORMi�A BACK6ROUND � The constitutional amenc�nent that gaverns the distribution of the Hlghway Users Fund was ado�0�dtatelroads�29%�todbe distributedtto tounty roads�andn9x to be distributed . to tity roads. The distributton of these fund s amonq the county and city road systems is qover�ed by both statute a�nd sdministrative rule. For a variety of reasons the distrfibution of the tity funds h�s co�tinued to meet the thang�ng needs of cities and th� population growth �nd has resulted in a farmul� that distributes approximately 80x of the city state a9d highway funds to cit9es in the seven county metropolftan area. Changes in the distribvtion for the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) funds, however, have not followed the population growth, and as a result, we find that today only about 17.7� of the CSAH funds are distributed to counties i� the seven county metropolitan area. Because virtually a11 of Dakota County's use of CSAN funds are- expended within the various cities in Oakota County and the resulting improvements to the caunty road system is a direct b�nefft to the cities in Dakota County, it wouid be beneficial ta both Dakota County and cities of Oakota County to bring about a more equitable distrlbution af CSAH funds. The current statutory distributiorr formula is as foilows: 10� equally to the 87 counties id� based on the ntmber of vehicles regjstered 30% the number of miles of CSAN roads 50� on need as determined by the Screening Committee The Screening Comnittee is made up of one representative from each of the 9 State Highway Districts of which there are 2 in the seven county metro are�. The defini�ion of need is mafnly spelled out in a�dministrative rule, but , proposed revlsions are dtscussed t�nd voted on by the members af the Screening Conm'ittee whjch is dominated by the rural part of Minnesota. RECQMMENQATION - Modify the current statutory distribution formula as follows: iQ� equaliy to the 87 counties 30� based on the number of vehiCles registered 30� the number of miles of CSAH roads 30� on need as determined by the Screening Comn�ttee - Assign greater priority to the nc�nber of vehicles req�istered, and reduce the importance of the aeeds factar. - �xpand membership ffthe urbanecounttesm(over 175,000 p�pulation��n� a member from each o - Base fundfng on lane miles rather than Ceriter line miles. LEGIS-HWY 4 • • ROAD IMPACT FEES Position Statement � BACKGROUND: . Local governments are using a variety of techniques to privatelg . f inance pubiic infrastructure. One such technique is impact fees. An i.mpact 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 facilties (arterial roads, int�rceptor sewers, � • . sewage treatment plants, regional parks, etc. ) to that development. " Impact fees under this definition are currently not legal in the State of Minnesota. Attempts have been made in the last few years to pass iegislation in the Minnesota Legislature that would enable cities and counties to impose a road access eharge (a form of an impact fe.e) to all new developments. Proposals have been made in the past that would allow cities to. assess a fee up to .$750 per single family home against all new developments based ugon the number of vehicle trips that the project generated. This iegislation was introduced in the 1987 and the 1988 legislative sessions. Supporters of enabling legislation believe that 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 cToser to fulfilling their � transportation needs. By collecting a road access charge at up to $750 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 adjaeent to the arterial/collector street. We believe that the ci.ties 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. - --- RECOMMENDATIONS: 1: Support the passage of legislation that would enable eities and counties to impose a road access charge. � . RE(3IONAL AIRPORT POLICY position Statemeat BAc�caRovrm: The Twin Cities Metropolitan reqion has actively debated noise and adequacy issues for almost twenty-five years. At t�he direction of the leqislature, the Metropolitan Council undertook a study of the MinnQapolis-St. Paul International Airport to consi.der its adQguacy to meet traffic demand in the future and the environmental capacity (e.g. , noise) of the community to coexist with the airport. Followi�g eiqhteen months of study, the Council's Airport Adequacy Task Force recoinmended that the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission implement a "dual t=ack approach" that includes enhancement of capaeity at the current site �na �ana 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 timelines for various tasks. - Enhancement of eapacity at the current airport site includes the extension of existing Runway 4/22 and a reorientation of its departure routes to the south and southeast, over Burnsville, Eagan and other parts of Dakota Caunty. The Airport Adequacy Task Force also concluded that there is a reasonable risk that the current airport's capacity will be exceeded within five years. They therefore recommend the possible construction of a new north- south runway, immediately adjacent to Cedar Avenue, to meet demand for ten to twenty years, while land banking and environmental reviews are eonducted for a potential relocation. As this time period exp3res, a d�ci�ion would be made to �ither construct an additional runway �t the �xisting site, (a third paralle], runway) . or to implement a relocation. The addition of a new north-south runway, immediately ad�acent to Cedar Avenue, would probably introduce additional fliqhts over Burnsville, Eagan and other parts of Dakota County. The addition of a third parallel runway would probably 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 ITI" generation aircraft are expected to be integrated in airline fleets during this same time period. The idea of landbanking in anticipation of a replacement airport has already spurred proposals from South Minneapolis noise activists for the use of the University of Minnesota's Rosemount site. However, the Metropolitan Council asserts that public ownership of 17,000 acres and strict land use controls over an even broader area wil.l be required to prevent a chronic noise problem. Based on those requirements, the Rosemount site is too small and residential development is too close and is rapidly expanding. If relocation occurs, it will present the classic public golicy dilemma - what to do with a very good thing which has some very bad side effects? Economic benefits to Dakota County from proximity to an airport could be iost, shifted or gained in a reloc.,a���fE,� K OGj 2 31989 ��� i . � • 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 same uncertainty will also pertain to the level, duration or possible introduction oE noise impacts in Dakota County, and its relationship to residential development or redevelopment. RBCOMMBNDAT ONB: The "dual track approach" of the Airport Adequacy Task Force is a ' reasonable means to allow a smooth transition from the eurrent site, (and its capacity) , to a higher capacity at the current or a new site. it alro keeps reqional options open in the event triat capacity projections prove inaccurate, but it could also i.ntroduce uncertainties in Dakota County that may dislocate commercial and residential development. In the final analysis, the County's best interests may be served by a policy of support for the use and expansion of the current site and, if relocation is necessary, support for a site of sufficient size to avert environmental issues of noise while also minimizing adverse economic impacts on Dakota County. Support for a new site should also be contingent on two other conditions: a) Under current criteria, the University of Minnesota's Rosemount facility should not be considered for a new airport. It is inadequately sized and too proximate to rapidly growing residential populations. b) Enhanaement af the capacity at the existing airport must be aceompanied by an equally zealous commitment to the mitigation of possible aircraft noise consequences. Dakota County should not be the metropolitan dumping ground for airport noise. Any new or changed distribution of aircraft noise in Dakota County should ' reflect and be firmiy guided by existing community comprehensive plans and settiement patterns. • ' � � BAZARDOUB MATERIAI,B RESPONSE position Statement BACRtiAOIIND In 1986 Congress passed the Emergency Planninq and Community Right to Know Act as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SAR,A) . Gongress enacted this law to help local communities protect public health and plan for chemical emergencies. To implement Title III, Conqress required each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) , and this Commission then established Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) . _ Although these Local Planning Committees exist, there is no statewide eoordination for hazardous materials resgonse. At a lacal leve2, 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 sgecialized hazardous response teams. Regionally orqanized response teams are the most effective and economical approach for responding to hazardous materials emerqencfes. The Minnesota Emergency Response Commission is recommending that a number of advance or level III regional teams be established throughout the state to provide a reasonable response time (1 hour or lessj to pot�ntial sites of hazardous materials emergencies. The team may include members from various departments within the reqion or members could be exclusively from one department (e.g. , St. Paul) . RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the establishment of regional hazardous material response teams to pravide 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 eover the training, equipment, and operational costs necessary to develop regional hazardous material teams which meet Federal and State safety and training regulations. � � . LAND USE PLAWNIN6 LE6ISLATION Position Statement BACKGROUND: SF1510/HF1654 was developed to unify, clarify, and recodify the existing planning laws for all local units of government. Previous drafts af these bills, discussed during the past two years, excited much municipal concern because of poorly drafted sect�ions (largely instigated by one person). These drafts would have largely reduced the options . available to cities, and reduced the powers of elected officials to deal with problems for which they are held responsible. The present draft under discussion has retained the principal benefit (organizinq and unifying the law�, while also removing and correcting the most obnoxious features of the early drafts. FEATURES: The present standards required for variances are to be replaced by a standard of "unnecessary difficulty", which is defined in the statute. Al1 cities are required to have a Board of Adjustment to handle variances, but this duty can be assigned to the Planning Commission, to a � separate body, or to the Council itself. If it is not handled directly by the Council, the decisions of the Board of Adjustment can be advisory (to the Council), or final subject to appeal , or final , as the city may decide. Cities will be obliged to reach a decision on Conditional Use Permit applications within 180 days. Parties aggrieved by C.U.P. decisions have 30 days to appeal . Cities will have three years to bring their own ordinances into compliance with the statute, after it becomes effective. The statute itself is 39 pages long; and makes many procedural changes; those listed above are illustrative only. RtCOMMENDATION: l . Support the passage of legislation to codify and unify state planning/zoning law, provided that municipalities retain appropriate options for their own unique circumstances. 2. Support the concept that elected City Council members should have the final decision on planning and zaning issues, if they wish. 3. Support the proposal ta give cities three years to update their laws to meet the proposed standards. 4. Oppose any proposed changes to the current bill that might serve to place additional restrictions on cities, or limit the powers historically assigned to elected public officials. J 1 .� � � � � . . COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WAST$ LEf3ISLATION Position statement BACRt3ROIIND In January 1989 the Metropolitan Council approved Dakota County's Recycling Implementation Strategy which included a segment on communi.ty recycling programs and strategies. The following April all pakota County municipalities began residential curbside recycling using recyeling bins and in May the Dakota County , Recyclables Gollection Center began accepting recyclable materials from County haulers. Throughout the year there has been substantial cooperation between the communities, garbage haulers and County to make the residential recycling prQgram a success. The Legislature's Special Session of October 1989 passed aggressive mandates regarding solid waste, including a 35� recycling goal for metropolitan counties by December 31, 1993 along with problem materials and hazardous waste legislation. By October 1990 the County must submit a solid waste management plan to meet the higher goals and include a household hazardous waste management plan. It is expected that solid waste management issues will continue to be one of the major environmental issues both locally and nationally. RECOMMENDATiQNS 1. There should be no major statutory changes for the metropolitan solid waste management system. - The recently passed SCORE legislation substantially expanded the roles o� cities and counties i.n solid waste management. The elements of this sys�tem should be allowed to mature and incrementally evolve. The Metropolitan Council should continue to be the policy coordinator for this metropalitan solid wa�te abatement system, with implementation the responsibil.ity of counties and cities. - We oppose any legislation which would depax�t from the current practice of relyinq an judicial int.erpretations of the federal and state constitutions' tak:ing clauses. 2. The purposes and priorities for solid waste poli.eies in the State of Minnesota may vary by region or even by� community. These differences need to be recognized when legislation seeks to specify goals, disposal strategies, ar program methods. Similarly, it must be recognized that solid waste disposal policies are important, but not paramou,nt, matters . � � COMPREHENSIVB SOLID WASTE L8f33I8LATION Position statement Page 2 of state concern. They must be developed and implemented with awareness and accommodation of the many other important social purposes that confront state, county and local governments. 3. The policy, regulatory, and administrative framework for solid waste disposal in Minnesota should promote flexibility, local innovation, and active partnership with the private sector. - Program standards and/or performance goals (not compliance with specified/mandated methods) should continue to serve as the basis for evaluating program • successes. For example, SCORE recognizes mechanical separation as an acceptable method for landfill abatement. - Solid waste program design and implementation decisions should be made the locai and county levels of government. They can more effectively reflect the individual characteristics and preferences of their communities, Centralized administration and regulation should be a measure of last resort. - Solid waste programs should utilize and incorpo�ate existing and developing private sector systems. Solid waste program design and impiementation decisions should seek to minimize governmental entanglement in the marketplaee. 4. Current funding mechanisms and levels for recycling and abatement efforts should be maintained or expanded. - There should be no new mandates in this policy area without an. accompanying source of funding. - The State and/or counties should continue to provide the major financial support for local abatement and recyeling programs. To that end, the county waste surcharge authorization should be continued. a , • , MA88 TRANSIT , Position etatement BACK¢ROUND Based upon recent I.egislative directives to the Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Council, Regio�al Transit Hoard and REgional Rail Authorities, a new era of transpartati.on/transit planning and eoordination has been initiated. The Metropolitan Council's ��1989 Transportation Develop�ent Quide/policy Plan�� and the RTB's ��1990-1994 Five-Year Plan�� establish the framework for maximum eoordination for the design and implementation of an integrated transit system in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. RECOMMENDATIQN The Legislature should continued to stress the merits of an integrated transit system and establish transit funding as a top priority in the 1990s.