2016 Legislative Policy; Mornson
ΕΓΔΙ ,¤¦¨²« ³¨µ¤ 0®«¨¢¸
&´£¨¦ ¥®± 37,24Ȁ
The City of Hopkins supports transit funding for the Southwest Light Rail and the financial
match needed to ensure the line is built.
The City of Hopkins supports the implementation of funding for transit improvement areas
and urges the Legislature to authorize various funding mechanisms for transit improvement
areas including; tax increment financing, tax abatement, bonding, and general fund
appropriations for a revolving loan program or grant program.
In addition, the City of Hopkins supports funding for improvements necessary to the 3
transit stations as well as assistance for job loss and tax base for the operation and
maintenance facility being located in Hopkins.
"®£¨¦ "¨«« ¥®± )¥«®¶ £ )¥¨«³± ³¨®Ȁ
Assist local communities in funding repairs and upgrades to local sewer infrastructure. The
City of Hopkins supports bonding for this purpose.
,®¢ « #®³±®«Ȁ
No restrictions on local government budgets such as levy limits and property tax freezes.
2¤£¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ &´£¨¦ ¥±®¬ "®£¨¦ "¨«« ®± $%%$Ȁ
The City of Hopkins is continuously dealing with cost for redevelopment efforts.
Redevelopment allows local communities to adjust to changing market conditions, better
utilize existing public infrastructure, and maintain a viable local tax base. However, due to
the high up-front costs of redevelopment, as compared to Greenfield development,
desirable redevelopment projects often require public assistance.
1
/źƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƦƉźƓƭ ЋЉЊЏ \[ĻŭźƭƌğƷźǝĻ tƚƌźĭǤ Ώ
It should be the goal of the State Legislature to champion development and redevelopment
throughout the state by providing enough sustainable funding to assure that the state
remains competitive in a global marketplace. The City of Hopkins supports increased
s Livable Communities Programs. It
strongly opposes funding reductions, transfers of Livable Communities Program funds to
other program areas and constrains on eligibility and Program requirements.
) ££¨³¨®Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ (®¯ª¨² ²´¯¯®±³²Ȁ
Increased, flexible and sustained Contamination Cleanup and Investigation Grant
Program, administered by DEED;
New financing and regulatory tools to nurture Transit Oriented Development, including
increased flexibility in the use of TIF for this purpose.
Increased and sustained general fund and state bond funds for the Redevelopment Grant
Program, administered by DEED, dedicated to Metropolitan Area projects;
The evaluation of SAC fees to determine if they hinder redevelopment;
Expansion of existing tools or development of new funding mechanisms to correct unstable
soils; and
State adoption of an income tax credit program to facilitate the preservation of historic
properties.
wĻǝźƭźƷ ƷŷĻ ƌğǞƭ ƚƓ ĭƚƓķƚƒźƓźǒƒ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ Ʒƚ ƭĻĻ źŅ ƷŷĻǤ ğƩĻ ğ ƩĻğƭƚƓ ǞŷǤ ĭƚƓķƚƭ ğƩĻ
ƓƚƷ ĬĻźƓŭ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦĻķ͵ LƷ źƭ ğƓƚƷŷĻƩ ƷǤƦĻ ƚŅ ŷƚǒƭźƓŭ ƷŷğƷ ĭƚǒƌķ ğķķ Ʒƚ ƚǒƩ ŷƚǒƭźƓŭ ķźǝĻƩƭźƷǤ͵
4)&Ȁ
Tax increment Financing (TIF) has been and continues to be the primary tool available to
local communities for assisting economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over
time, several statutory changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use, while
recently property tax reform has resulted in a decreased state financial stake in city TIF
decisions. At the same time that TIF has become more restrictive and difficult to use, federal
and state development and redevelopment resources have been steadily shrinking. The
2006 eminent domain changes will make redevelopment significantly more expensive in
some cases, and impossible in others. The cumulative impact of TIF restrictions shrinking
federal and state redevelopment resources, and changes to eminent domain laws will
restrict a citys ability to address problem properties and will accelerate the decline of
developed cities in the Metropolitan Area. Without proper tools and resources to address
decline, cities will be unable to stop it. At a minimum, the state should authorize increased
flexibility in local TIF decisions.
2
/źƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƦƉźƓƭ ЋЉЊЏ \[ĻŭźƭƌğƷźǝĻ tƚƌźĭǤ Ώ
4§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ (®¯ª¨² ´±¦¤² ³§¤ ,¤¦¨²« ³´±¤ ³®Ȁ
Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain or directly or indirectly
reduce the effectiveness of TIF;
Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District criteria so
that a Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated parcels in
addition to railroad property;
Expand the flexibility of TIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects;
Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects;
Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and if warranted provide
cities with additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls;
Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit related TIF districts to address
development and redevelopment issues associated with transit or transfer stations;
reduction in greenhouse gases or other crite
Encourage DEED to do an extensive cost-benefit analysis related to redevelopment,
including an analysis of the various funding mechanisms, and an analysis of where the cost
burden fall with each of the options compared to the distribution of the benefits of the
redevelopment project; and
Consider creating an inter-disciplinary TIF team to review local exception TIF proposals,
using established criteria, and make recommendations to the legislative on their passage.
For sites that do not meet the restrictive blight and contamination definitions of the 2006
changes to eminent domain law, the Legislature should explore creating incentives to
encourage owners whose properties meet the blight definitions under M.S., Chapter 469, to
voluntarily sell their land for redevelopment purposes. Incentives could include income tax
credits, capital gains deferrals or other incentives targeted at property owners.
The City of Hopkins encourages the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more
efficient and streamlined reporting process.
3
/źƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƦƉźƓƭ ЋЉЊЏ \[ĻŭźƭƌğƷźǝĻ tƚƌźĭǤ Ώ
(®´²¨¦ £ #®¬¬¤±¢¨ «Ȁ
ŷĻ ƌĻŭźƭƌğƷǒƩĻ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ğƌƭƚ ƩĻΏ
ğƌƌƚǞ ƨǒğƌźŅǤźƓŭ ƚǞƓĻƩƭ ƚŅ ƭźƓŭƌĻ ŅğƒźƌǤ ŷƚƒĻƭͲ ƒǒƌƷźΏǒƓźƷ ƩĻƓƷğƌ ƦƩƚƦĻƩƷźĻƭͲ ğƓķ
ĭƚƒƒĻƩĭźğƌ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭƭ Ʒƚ ķĻŅĻƩ ƷŷĻ źƓĭƩĻğƭĻ źƓ Ʒğǣ ĭğƦğĭźƷǤ ŅƩƚƒ ƩĻƦğźƩƭ ƚƩ źƒƦƩƚǝĻƒĻƓƷƭ͵
ŷźƭ Ǟƚǒƌķ ğƌƌƚǞ ŭƩĻğƷĻƩ ŅƌĻǣźĬźƌźƷǤ źƓ ƷğƩŭĻƷźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƩĭźğƌ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ğƓķ
ƩĻķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ğƭ ǞĻƌƌ ğƭ ğĭƷ ğƭ źƓĭĻƓƷźǝĻ ŅƚƩ ĭźƷźĻƭ Ʒƚ ƒğźƓƷğźƓ ŷƚǒƭźƓŭ ƭƷƚĭƉ͵
0 ±ª¨¦ 2 ¬¯ ȃ -¨¤²®³ 3³ ³´¤² ΑΐΕ#ȁΑΏȀ
No enclosed structure or portion of an enclosed structure constructed after January 1,
1978, and used primarily as a commercial parking facility for three or more motor vehicles
shall be heated. Incidental heating resulting from building exhaust air passing through a
parking facility shall not be prohibited, provided that substantially all useful heat has
previously been removed from the air͵ ŷźƭ ƭǒĬķźǝźƭźƚƓ ƭŷğƌƌ ƓƚƷ ƦƩƚŷźĬźƷ ğ ƦǒĬƌźĭƌǤ ƚǞƓĻķ
ƦğƩƉźƓŭ ŅğĭźƌźƷǤ ŅƩƚƒ ĬĻźƓŭ ŷĻğƷĻķ Ʒƚ ƓƚƷ ƚǝĻƩ ЎЉ ķĻŭƩĻĻƭͲ ǞŷĻƩĻ ƦǒĬƌźĭ ƦğƩƉźƓŭ źƭ ΛźΜ
źƓƷĻŭƩğƷĻķ ĻźƷŷĻƩ ğĬƚǝĻ ƚƩ ĬĻƌƚǞ ƚƩ ĬƚƷŷ źƓ ğ ŅğĭźƌźƷǤ ǞźƷŷ ƦǒĬƌźĭ ğƓķ ƦƩźǝğƷĻ ǒƭĻƭͲ ğƓķ ΛźźΜ
ǞŷĻƩĻ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƭƷ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķĻƭźŭƓ ğƓķ ĭƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷźƚƓ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƦǒĬƌźĭ ƦğƩƉźƓŭ ŅğĭźƌźƷǤ Ǟƚǒƌķ ĬĻ
źƓĭƩĻğƭĻķ ğĬƚǝĻ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƭƷ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķĻƭźŭƓ ğƓķ ĭƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷźƚƓ ƚŅ ğƓ ǒƓŷĻğƷĻķ ƦğƩƉźƓŭ ŅğĭźƌźƷǤ͵
4
/źƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƦƉźƓƭ ЋЉЊЏ \[ĻŭźƭƌğƷźǝĻ tƚƌźĭǤ Ώ