Transportation & General Legislation Committee
V-A Transportation and Transit Funding
Metro Cities supported the 2008 Transportation Finance bill. This legislation allows for necessary resources for MnDOT, the county road system and the MSA road system, and will help make up for the lack of state resources over the last twenty years. Metro Cities was proud to be part of the effort to secure this base level funding.
However, the resources contained in the transportation finance bill represent only half of the need in our counties, cities and state. Metro Cities recognizes the need for additional transportation funding statewide, and will continue to advocate for additional resources to maintain our transportation infrastructure. In addition, cities still lack the authority to use additional tools for city street improvements; such resources continue to be restricted to property taxes and special assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority be granted to municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that serves both commuters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of HOV lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corridors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the region’s changing travel patterns.
Metro Cities strongly supported the ¼ cent sales tax which was passed by the 2008 Legislature. This tax will be levied in the Metropolitan Area and dedicated to transit. The sales tax represents a commitment to investment in our region’s transitways. It will be important to direct these revenues purposefully, and to avoid subsidizing areas of transit funding that are the responsibility of the Legislature and Metropolitan Council. Metro Cities is opposed to legislative directives that constrain the ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse commute routes, suburb-to-suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box.
V-C Transit Operating Subsidies
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding to include rail transit and dedicated bus ways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities and counties should not be singled out to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service within this regional system. The Metropolitan Council must find a stable and growing revenue source to fund the operating budget for Metro Transit. MVST revenue projections have not been reliable and as a result the Met Council is continuing to operate at a funding deficit. The ¼ cent sales tax will be used, in part, to fund operating costs on designated transitways in the Metropolitan Area. It is critical that this tax not be allocated in ways that allow the Legislature or Met Council to abrogate their responsibilities for funding operating costs for the metropolitan transit system.
V-D Street Improvement Districts
Metro Cities supports the authority of local units of government to establish street improvement districts. Street improvement districts allow for cities in developed and developing areas to fund new construction as well as reconstruction and maintenance efforts. A street improvement district is designed to allow cities, through the use of a fair and objective fee structure, to create a district or districts within the city in which fees would be raised and must also be spent. The street improvement district would also provide cities with populations under 5,000 with an alternative to the property tax system and special assessments.
V-E Highway Turnbacks & Funding
Metro Cities supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads on a phased basis using functional classifications and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continued maintenance. Metro Cities does not support the wholesale turnback of county roads without the total cost being reimbursed to the city in a timely manner.
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to absorb the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. The 2008 Transportation Finance legislation will add approximately $6 million to the Metro Turnback Fund, bringing the fund up to $20 million, which falls short of the $100 million needed.
Metro Cities supports additional funding for municipalities that are assuming the role of maintenance and upkeep on city streets that maintain a level of traffic consistent with state highways. Cities should be compensated for providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. The state has abrogated its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of maintenance on major state roads.
V-F “3C” Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials’ Role
Metro Cities supports continuation of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), with a majority of locally elected officials as members and participating in the process. The TAB was developed to meet federal requirements, designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for a continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century (TEA21) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
V-G Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws
Cities should be allowed to enforce traffic laws and promote public safety on Minnesota’s streets and highways through the use of photo enforcement technology.
Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize the impacts of Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) operated facilities on neighboring communities. The MAC should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities and concerns of impacted cities and their residents. The MAC and the state should seek long-term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all homes in the 64-60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and charges collected from airport users, as well as state and federal funds. Furthermore, unless mitigation funding is provided, Metro Cities opposes any legislation that requires a property owner to disclose those properties that lie within 64-60 DNL noise contours.
Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airports are significantly impacted by noise, traffic, and other numerous expansion-related issues, Metro Cities supports the broad goal of providing MSP-impacted communities greater representation on the MAC. Metro Cities wants to encourage continued communication between the MAC commissioners and the cities they represent. Regular contact between the MAC and cities will enhance communication and problem solving.
V-I Cities Under 5,000 Population
Cities under 5,000 in population do not directly receive any non-property tax funds for collector and arterial streets. Current CSAH distributions to metropolitan counties are inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Criteria, such as the number of average daily trips, should be established in a small city local road improvement program for funding qualification, and a distribution method devised. Possible funding sources include the five-percent set-aside account in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts, street improvement districts, and/or state general funds.
V-J County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
Even with the additional resources provided by the Legislature through the transportation finance bill, significant needs remain in the metro area CSAH system. The additional revenue for the CSAH system will result in more projects being completed faster, however, greater pressure is being placed on municipalities to participate in cost sharing activities, encumbering an already over-burdened local funding system. When the alternative is not building or maintaining roads, cities bear not only the costs of their local systems but also pay upward of fifty percent of county road projects. Metro Cities supports special or additional funding for cities that have burdens of additional cost participation in county road projects.
Although only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle miles traveled. The new CSAH formula passed by the Legislature will better account for needs in the Metropolitan Area, and the new formula is a first step in providing additional resources for the Metropolitan Area.
V-K Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Minnesota Statutes direct the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizen/business/municipal input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, it may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeals board are binding on both the city and MnDOT.
Metro Cities opposes any changes to current statutes that would allow MnDOT to disregard the appeals board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change would significantly minimize MnDOT’s need to negotiate in good faith with a city for appropriate project access and alignment, and it would make the public hearing and appeals process meaningless.
Metro Cities opposes elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal process for the same reasons we oppose changing the process as it applies to MnDOT trunk highway projects.
Metro Cities supports current law granting counties review and comment authority for access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. Metro Cities opposes any statutory change that would grant the county veto power or that would shorten the 120-day review and permit process time.
Metro Cities supports a reduction in the state-wide default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph on local residential roads. Metro Cities supports design standards that result in slower speeds on local roads. In the event of a uniform speed limit reduction, Metro Cities supports increased state funding for education and enforcement.
V-N Speed Limits Surrounding City Parks and Schools
At cities’ or counties’ discretion, Metro Cities supports a year round reduction of speed limits within 500 feet of any city and county parks and schools.
With the passage of the transportation finance legislation, much of MNDOT’s maintenance budget has been restored. However, it is likely that local units of government will continue be asked to maintain state-owned infrastructure. Metro Cities’ supports MnDOT alleviating cities of the State’s responsibility through the additional resources provided to MnDOT in the Transportation Finance legislation. We also support funding that allows the State to maintain its own infrastructure.
Metro Cities supports a stable revenue source to fund capital and operating costs for transit at the Metropolitan Council. The transit taxing district, which funds the capital cost of transit service in the Metropolitan Area through the property tax system, is inequitable. Because the boundaries of the transit taxing district do not correspond with any rational service line, cities in the taxing district and out of the taxing district are contributing unequally to the transit service in the Metropolitan Area. This inequity should be corrected. However, Metro Cities does not support the expansion of the transit taxing district without a corresponding increase in service. To do so would add another burden to property tax payers without a corresponding benefit.