Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly Notes- May 28th 2021 - reduced file size CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS—WEEKLY NOTES for: May 28th 2021 TO: City Council Members& Staff FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator Zoning&Development Items: 1. No new applications have been received and the June 10'Planning Commission has been cancelled due to a lack of business. 2. A stop work order has been placed on Palmer Station-Lot 8 for non-compliance with the required BOULDER WALL installation; use of structural brick was not in the submission and changes the aesthetic presented in the public process. We are awaiting information on how Creative Homes wishes to proceed. COVID-19 Matters: • This is the Governor's-PORTAL https://mn.gov/covidl9—Many documents/Exec.Orders can be found. Washington County has initiated a County Dashboard containing more localized COVID-19 Impacts and rates LINK->>HERE. Other Items: Reading the new amendments together in light of the recent data practices Eckberg Lammers' — Pam Whitmore did provide a general opinion could seem confusing. The bottom line is that if members of the summary of the Open meeting law and how it relates to remote / body meet as a quorum or more in person,then you can allow a remote (zooming-type)access—the full document is enclosed. It engages option for public but you also should open up the meeting location to the the material in a concise way. However,the major takeaway (see public as well.until July 1,2021,any members of the body who want to still iaan inset) is that after July 11t, 2021 — much Shifts back to limiting remotely from a private location can do so without concern of not being able to do so more than three times and without having to disclose their location. remote access to not more than three times per year and requires After July 1,2021 however,members joining remotely must do so from a being in a public location with Some temporary exceptions. public location which is identified in the notice unless either the active military exception or the limited health exception applies and then only for three times The Mosquito Control District will begin its 2021 operations and per calendar year. you may see them out in the City. See their enclosed press release. Many mayors from across the state(including Mayor MCComber)have sent communications to the House/Senate Conference Committee— engaging issue in the Senate Omnibus File that would limit or possibly preclude the use of PUDs. This is a development tool that grants flexibility to deviate from lot-lines, setbacks and other more specific lot-by-lot elements of a zoning ordinance. Please see the enclosed documents. Please see the compliments received about COVER PARK and the City's summer park worker. Mayor McComber provided: 1. Various NLC Updates—May 22nd and May 261 and May 291 2. Letter from Kindergartener Teddy Siewrigh Please let me know if you have any questions-651-253-7837 Call Anytime. 1 of 70 ECKBERG LANI ERS AS li ATTORNEYS AT LAW LEGISLATIVEP. The Pandemic and the Open Meeting Law May 19, 2021 As COVID restrictions begin to ease in Minnesota, the Legislature has made changes to the Open Meeting Law to help guide cities through the transition back to in person meetings and beyond. On May 6, 2021 , Governor Tim Walz signed into law changes to the Open Meeting Law that address technology updates, as well as provide additional guidance for members of decision-making bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law for joining remotely. Below is a bullet pointed summary of the relevant changes. A couple technical changes persist beyond the pandemic: • The Legislature replaced the former, outdated reference to joining via interactive t.v. to joining via interactive technology and added a definition for interactive technology to include a "device, software program or other application that allows individuals in different physical locations to see and hear one another". • The Legislature amended the Open Meeting Law to allow entities to record votes in meeting minutes, in addition to or instead of a journal. • These amendments also state that entities subject to the open meeting law may no longer require any person or persons joining meetings remotely to pay for additional costs to body for allowing remote connections. 2of70 1 -- ECKBERG LANI ERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Other changes respond specifically to situations that have arisen out of the pandemic: • Minn. Stat. 13D.02, now titled "OTHER ENTITY MEETINGS CONDUCTED BY INTERACTIVE TV; CONDITIONS TECHNOLOGY," (which means entities other than state entity meetings) now allows members who meet the active military exception of the 60-day post-Covid health exception to join from a private remote location (as opposed to a public location) without closing the address of that location. Keep in mind, the active military and limited health exception was not changed and is only available to members three times per calendar year. Otherwise, members joining remotely (after July 1 , 2021 as discussed below) must do so from a publicly accessible location. The military exception includes only members serving in the military and at a required drill, deployed, or on active duty. The limited health exception only lasts for 60 days after the removal of a Chapter 12 state of emergency and only for those members advised by a health care professional against being in a public place for personal or family medical reasons. • The Legislature additionally provided current relief for members who continue to join remotely during the pandemic to have the means to do so from an undisclosed private location for a limited amount of time. Specifically, members are now allowed to join meetings remotely during the time frame after December 31 , 2020, and before July 1 , 2021 from a private location and, for that limited time, without being limited to only three times and without disclosing the location in the notice. 3of70 2 I�� ECKBERG LANI ERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW • Additionally, Section 13D.021 now provides guidance for public comment during pandemics, stating that if a declaration of non-feasibility for meeting in person is in place, members of the public should be allowed to comment from a remote location during the public comment time to the extent practical. The Legislature hopes that providing these changes will help cities transition back to in person meetings while respecting the health concerns of many during these unprecedented times. Cities and other bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law under 13D.02 and 13D.021 , however, should be aware of a recent Data Practice Office opinion which may impact how cities decide to structure their meetings as they transition back. The Commissioner of the Data Practice Office issued a recent opinion in mid-April, 2021 , stating that for entities that have officially declared meeting in person not feasible, then at least a quorum or more of the members of the body must join remotely since that declaration was made. The case involved a school board that had declared in person meetings not feasible, requiring the public to join remote, but still allowing all the members of the body to be in person rather remote. In that case, a quorum or more of the school board members met in person, but, because of concerns of social distancing requirements, prohibited any in person public. 4of70 3 -- ECIGERG LAMMERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW The DPO Commissioner, in the opinion, stated "The Commissioner notes that there is currently not a mechanism in the OML for public body members to hold in-person meetings while limiting public attendance to electronic monitoring. Section 13D.021 permits telephone or electronic meetings of public bodies during a health pandemic or Chapter 12 emergency, meaning that a quorum of a public body that intends to gather in order to discuss, decide, or receive information related to public business under this section must do so via telephone or other electronic means" Advisory Opinion 21-003. Reading the new amendments together in light of the recent data practices opinion could seem confusing. The bottom line is that if members of the body meet as a quorum or more in person, then you can allow a remote option for public but you also should open up the meeting location to the public as well. Until July 1 , 2021 , any members of the body who want to still join remotely from a private location can do so without concern of not being able to do so more than three times and without having to disclose their location. After July 1 , 2021 however, members joining remotely must do so from a public location which is identified in the notice unless either the active military exception or the limited health exception applies and then only for three times per calendar year. THE O. Pamela I F. Whitmore Attorney a , Rule 114 Qualified Neutral pwhitmore@eckberglammers.com (651) 351-2133 5of70 4 r4V!_b1NSN nn mm om o4 49 N E R N E R %W0114 METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Alex Carlson May 24, 2021 Public Affairs Coordinator (612) 750-9960 acarlson@mmcd.org Mosquito Control activity happening in your community Metropolitan Mosquito Control District trucks, helicopters, and staff will be out in neighborhoods and parks this summer working to reduce mosquito-borne disease and annoyance. SAINT PAUL- Summer weather in Minnesota means we are starting to see an increase in mosquitoes and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (MMCD) will be out conducting surveillance and treatment activities to reduce the risk of disease and annoyance in an environmentally-sensitive manner. Each year the field staff at MMCD monitors and treats wetlands that breed mosquitoes with a fleet of trucks and helicopters. With many people still working from home during the weekday due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more people may notice MMCD activities in local neighborhoods and parks. At times MMCD employees may need to cross private property for access to check and treat areas for mosquito larvae. MMCD management asks the community to please stay several feet away from field staff and ensure children and pets are kept at a distance. If you have questions about mosquito control activities or concerns about an employee, please call the MMCD front desk at (651) 645-9149 or visit MMCD.org. Some of the activities that MMCD may be doing in your community include: • Wetland surveillance - determining if ponds or swamps have mosquito larvae present. • Catchbasin surveillance - pulling off grates and inspecting neighborhood catch basins to determine if mosquito larvae are present. • Ground larval treatments - applying control materials to a wetland with a hand spreader or backpack. • Helicopter larval treatments - applying control materials to a wetland via helicopter. • Catchbasin treatments - applying control materials to neighborhood catchbasins. • Setting or collecting traps - surveillance helps MMCD determine where and what types of mosquitoes are active. 6of70 The control materials and methods used by MMCD are regularly tested for safety and only applied when surveillance indicates they would be effective. They are designed specifically to target mosquito larvae or adults with minimal impacts on non-target insects. The control materials are not harmful to people, pets, or wildlife. For a complete list of control materials used, please visit MMCD.org. We are also excited to be returning to a select number of community events and parades this year! MMCD staff bring educational materials and interactive activities for all ages to our booths at county fairs and other community festivals and a giant inflatable mosquito will be featured at parades this summer. If your community has an event you would like Mosquito Control to be featured, please contact us! The Metropolitan Mosquito Control District appreciates your support. For information about our programs or for tips on how to reduce mosquitoes near your home, please visit MMCD.org. For press inquiries or interview requests, please contact Alex Carlson - acarlsonO-mmcd.orq or (612) 750-9960. 7of70 0� P RIpV� 1~ AN � �' 4646 Dakota Street SE I Prior Lake, MN 55372 952.447.9800 1 www.priorlakemn.gov ""NNESO-" May 26, 2021 To: The Honorable Senator(s) Draheim and Duckworth Representative(s) Hausman and Howard Housing Commissioner Ho RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators and Commissioner Ho: All the cities represented on this letter have sent previous letters in strong opposition to the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill. The language in that bill would eliminate the use of Planned Unit Development(s) (PUD) and the many community benefits that would have been achieved through the continued access to this tool in shaping our future development. The impacts on the restriction of PUD's are significant. PUD's give cities and developer's flexibility and creativity—especially in redeveloping historical areas—to overcome unique circumstances and challenges. Without the flexibility of the PUD, future developments will be required to fit within rigid one-size-fits-all parameters. This approach will be harmful for both developers and cities. The language in the Bill constrains the use of PUD's to what is required by the Minnesota State Building Code. The Building Code is a minimum standard that any building must meet to be built. It is not a maximum standard. It exists only to ensure safety and does nothing to provide flexibility and mutual PUD benefits. The Bill will also eliminate local control entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their unique communities. A one-size-fits-all approach undermines the fundamental purposes and tenets of local control and treats every city in the state the same irrespective of local differences and identified needs. The proposed legislation will in no way mitigate the broader concerns about a lack of affordable housing in our communities. The cost of housing is determined by increasing building material, land, and labor costs which are driven by supply and demand—variables of a capital marketplace. A loss of local control and loss of an extremely useful development tool for Prior Lake and all communities across the State of Minnesota simply will not result in a reduction of housing costs. 8of70 We respectfully ask for your support in opposing the provisions in the Housing omnibus bill that reduce local control by eliminating the method in which PUD's are currently utilized. Sincerely, /� h -III eggs Mayor, City of Prior Lake Attachments: Letters from 25 cities opposing encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the PUD provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill. cc: Mayor Christopher Meyer-City of Belle Plaine Mayor Tim Busse - City of Bloomington Mayor Elizabeth Kautz- City of Burnsville Mayor Nancy Bormann - City of Canby Mayor Courtney Johnson - City of Carver Mayor Elise Ryan - City of Chanhassen Mayor Ron Case - City of Eden Prairie Mayor James Hovland - City of Edina Mayor Mike Maguire - City of Eagan Mayor Dave Smiglewski - City of Granite Falls Mayor Lori Weldon - City of Heidelberg Mayor Doug Anderson - City of Lakeville Mayor Mary Gaasch City of Lauderdale Mayor Josh Fredrickson - City of Le Center Mayor Tim Rud - City of Lonsdale Mayor Brad Wiersum - City of Minnetonka Mayor Thomas Eisert- City of Montgomery Mayor Chuck Nickolay- City of New Prague Mayor Robert Beussman -City of New Ulm Mayor Mary McComber- City of Oak Park Heights Mayor William Mars- City of Shakopee Mayor Robert Nelson - City of Spring Lake Park Mayor Anne Burt- City of Woodbury Mayor Lisa Iverson - City of Wyoming 9of70 2 nee e Plaj.ne Aprll 26 2021 To:The 'InA Pi,'i'l Represent-�ifivp,(s) Agbiale, Hausmav, Howard, Heyel, --wl I 1W- RL; Opposition to . ji i':r".'c3SB . C?`-f Sir'f iii Cl0;,I'ly oe�Jhhnrlncxls nw!f,' Qifil Planned Use i% 4-1-" Irlri.,- in tW. l ik I ()iiiii bm, HAk Honorable Lecisla,.ors: (7,)n heholf of 11-e City of Estill= Plaine o,-lic-i is ch_"re,jf7!d with upholding 11e hoa'd-, irid the I :�u opl�,clse- 0'all OUr residc�,nt., I : Ck,,.,7si1y fr,, arl."iiy ";j !.!'0V 11 11, lj�� r Cc-nate 0mrihus R I , 9,0 ig Committee Ar,iclp 2 Scctions J1 and 8 of the ',sl ,Df the P n ie. Hf) v;i n g Crrrinihiis hill, -ndn (-yr !-ninn(c the loca� contra s ertrL15�tO-d t 01i o- irl ,or Itumb jj!veiojA1'V� p!uvr: ow� �'ha.C'I s ovPr52C,11q 'he•qicvAl,, ard developmert o' th,.-ir (,-;-Y murilty A approach a'tacks ,,'le �Liridanie"ilall ii-r-Qitance of local ccrit-(il aid 1,, E1vur.y cily in the slik2 ',`ie Same. ir espec',ive of Iccall differmicos anc' ide-Aified w: As cilieS. KO, 2I-r. MCAJI-Od Plans. Thel ,,�,7 1)1!.Jj rl va`u es, t1-Id V 0 I CC 0"0Llr i t I Ze 11 b. 0,1o p tod Fi i i d a In p rov e c, Cc)?-np- i: iv,-, j j,,; u 1 d e overt' de6slni, invcstrnen` ) that am- made in our comjflLlill[y' )'� pi :visions in the S?11 te 1-10 L 1!7:I-q 10 ni i-1 i h i gill e r-,c o t.ra q t i q t 11 e 1)F-1 r i i,i t(i ri q of du pie.xe s I i co i,q i foL i r plex e s in sirgle---f�iw ly Fieighruorhi,,r)ds & c!--i'llrary :c tl)o con-ipre-iensive plarrw<-j and WOUld have significant negative ramifications for our city. ,4:1y pl":(, T-[--1 -L111:`:) that cciislrain aur ability I of decrea,,c. the aIJIft,,- to rely or OU1 P)�-If"s, would lLj ;ill i1*,-:nl Iii :r3ial burder- to ex :111L: 1.-XP,-4yC1s to pick UP COSt-3 of grovAn. P'Jl,,);D pi,vif:p. -lCvelope[s and f-litic.- 11ik a Pa!-h--,v,:1y1'C' rl"'..1.1 1 ri 9 ch aI--r i g i ri 9 p,-ojec:6 to i vi-,-i rd, To i I I u s ti j i I eed, consider a r-c,:] r I L I I CV de--Irl: s('I 'IW G I I F1 1-�].;tUf a I a His hn ic L'isrtrict. As a re d ;D p m e n I.p roj e c I " p rU 1-: :[i, 11-"Lides aesthefics tC �[!Sffe the nevy stru:vLkiied blend w tI i Ih.- old. To [-�A PUD as proposed -1 the Serate Housing 01r1 I;nS ball, could z3e,ve -.o adversely impact adAicerrt prope,ties 9-id allo-f� ffie c-iaractor of an area 10 be A PUD can ai,8o be i-nper`nrit for a new hOLISI11.1 d:,velopryient. Consider the challenge of building in an area of iri id varied natural features of topoqr,phy, wetlands, c-.rics1g,iificPnt trees. in these setbn LJI'Clu,:� project -seeds not covared in a g-,, jc2velopeaq often choose PUDZ to ac- M-C�SF City:S lba-qr 701-41-1x] P4X)'s give the fievelnoor r7mind [[,p 6ty ,,, hC�mc--work for m-nArn':;,i--icj [h�--, pug elltia V 'Iu,lbing in t1w:? J1;'l`UW setting Whil; or increasilirli uor'l[runi-L,'� acce� to !lei-jliburhoods. The Iar-UL.E,'0E- u" LI u Svriate HOLISirlg 011-niUi.6 L-Al W(')Llld have negative irnpl cations V this, juFt as it clid in the Histork. Dio,r!Q ahnve 216 North Meridian Street , P.C. Dox 129 - Belle Plaine, MN 56011-0129 - 952-873-5553 - Fax 952-873-5509 viviw.belle plai nernn.com 10of70 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus till wouVenh. ,nuc nowborne a ffordab(h fy- Fro m seve,aI persper,t i vYs, this is a faJSO narrativeI If true, we would have r,c c-i p--esented with the objective data with a demonstrated r:orrection to a lower sales price on a mew h-:3tiie. lastead of c,o ifirrri t)I y :I4 :.1 ria at;vrdabilit-r. Ihu '�eor ate Hous-ng Orn:iibus bill W0J ci a,k cities arc: tnx^avers i. tru,..l: .;ri , possibility of Ll kpi k:ility n exchange for reducing ccal control artil tw Fn:QUI";go gr7e :ter: +.; 0. In short, we ask you to oppose the lancuage within the Sena-.c -!:•rising Orin bus bill that reduoas local control and encourages a acre-silo-fi,s i-,6 approach 4.4,t I- Cit�'s and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposi,.:in 1 Woulcl avelcrarile the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thw artinc t[ie ;:+' , X77 ri5.'e l2ngi m(le in 'he Sera tr: Housing Omnibus gill that will be brought into your cum mit co. Sincerely, br4ristloper ar' meyer k---- Payor, City of Belle PlFine C.C. Governor Tire W 7 Seri at2 rvlajurl:_4' L .'.i r' Pao Gazelka Seri:'-[.- f,girioi I';' I c:irjt r 5.rsan Kent I'.0,'-c,t the I IJUtie Nge'is.z Ho-Crnan I I:....i :4 Pr'i,.a�r::rity I. :�=�'r R•4�n ':"+tinkle;. H.,-:ri:•; NJiiorr'v Let.i:i bluff, LQ; :'JLIG' ;;)f tulinno,,nta Citc.•ss [!Lic ie Irc:•r h: IvIkr Ir; Cities- Charlie 11an,.I-J r',::.rd:: +, ; [ion of Minnesoto (—,crit cr,; 218 North Meridian Street � P.O. Box 129 • Pelle Plaine, PAN 55411-IJ129 952-873-5553 Fax 952-873-5509 www,beileplainernrr.cam 11 of 70 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DocuSign Envelope ID:34200283-4488-4E86-B543-3733CABF08D7 C CITY OF BLOOMINGTON MINNESOTA May 6, 2021 Honorable Senators Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representatives Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Bloomington Opposition to Provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Bloomington, I request that you remove provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unoflcial Engrossment, moving into your Housing Conference Committee. In addition to eroding local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community, we are concerned that provisions within the bill will create unanticipated and undesired consequences. Specifically, we are most concerned with the following provisions in Section 8: A municipality shall not require planned unit development agreement conditions that exceed the requirements in the State Building Code under chapter 326E and A municipality shall not condition approval ofa building permit, subdivision development, or planned unit development on the use ofspecific materials, design, amenities, or other aesthetic conditions that are not required by the State Building Code under chapter 326B. Planned unit developments are important and frequently used tools for zoning flexibility. In Bloomington's case, the planned development process allows the City to grant flexibility requested by developers on any zoning standard, such as lot sizes, unit sizes, setbacks, parking, or height in exchange for amenities or design that provides a"public benefit". For example, on May 3,2021, the City of Bloomington approved a planned development for a hotel conversion to apartments where flexibility was granted on minimum unit size and other zoning standards in light of the developer's proposal to provide increased long term affordability for 20 percent of the units. While proposed by the developer, the increased affordability was memorialized as a condition of approval to ensure long term compliance. The Building Code does not address affordability, so presumably the condition "exceeds" the Building Code and therefore runs afoul of the proposed language. The Building Code was not meant to address amenities, design or aesthetics and should not be used as a yardstick for zoning tools such as the planned unit development. MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER 1800 W.OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD,BLOOMINGTON MN 55431-3027 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL PH 952-561l�AV FAX 952-563-8754 TTY 952-563-8740 OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER DocuSign Envelope ID:34200283-4488-4E86-B543-3733CABF08D7 2 Our primary concern is that the proposed language will stifle innovation and flexibility and force more standard developments that do not reflect community needs and desires. For example, imagine a large undeveloped wooded parcel with publicly owned wooded open space on either side. A developer could create a number of standard single family lots and remove all the trees to accommodate the homes. Or the developer could take advantage of a planned unit development, receive flexibility to build the same number of homes on smaller lot sizes and preserve a wooded wildlife corridor through the development connecting the two publicly owned open spaces. The second option advances the public interest while retaining the same number of units for the developer. Bloomington has used the planned development process in several instances to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the proposed language would prohibit use of this tool for the common good given that the Building Code does not address wildlife corridors and that wooded wildlife corridors can be considered "amenities", "design" or"aesthetics". In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will reduce local control while handcuffing and rendering obsolete the planned unit development tool. We also ask that you modify the web posting requirements for planned unit developments from seven days to three days to reflect the standard posting of packets prior to City Council meetings. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I welcome the opportunity to speak directly with you regarding our significant concerns and the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, -°—DocuSigned by: D. (--i46BAC1F15829469... James D. Verbrugge City Manager Copy: Senator Melissa Wiklund Senator Melisa Franzen Representative Steve Elkins Representative Andrew Carlson City Council 13 of 70 city of Burnsville 952-895-4400 100 Civic Center Parkway • Burnsville, Minnesota 55337-3817 www.burnsville.org March 18, 2021 Open Letter to Legislators Honorable Senator(s) and Representative(s), On behalf of the constituents of the City of Burnsville, I write to voice opposition to the many legislative initiatives (SF915/SF914/SF 801/ HF1085)focused on housing that will be heard in committee this week and through the end of session. As a collection of preemption legislation, each bill erodes or eliminates the local control entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of our communities. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the exact same way regardless of locally identified needs. Cities like Burnsville are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans serve as the foundation guiding the many decisions facing a growing community. The various housing bills would have significant long-term implications for these Comprehensive Plans. Any preemption weakening local control lessens our ability to develop in a manner desired by our constituents and consistent with our Comprehensive Plans. Some might have us believe these legislative proposals will enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives these bills represent a false narrative: "Where is the data documenting that legislative change will lower the sales price of a new home? Of course, the data does not exist. Instead,you are being asked to create a legislative change, absent any assurances that it would result in a reduced sales price of a new home. • Growth brings with it increased cost to a city. The proposed legislation seeks to limit the ability for a city to recoup these costs from whence they came (the development itself). Not having the local control to equitably collect a fee from developers is not an elimination of a cost- it is a transfer of a cost to our existing taxpayers. • This legislation would ask us to trade off the possibility of enhanced affordability to a new home buyer, and at the same time knowingly decreasing the affordability of housing for our existing homeowners as they will be required to pick up the costs of growth through higher tax levy increases. • Again, the affordability narrative is false. It lacks data and credibility. Seeing any of these legislative proposals made into law would serve to raise taxes on our existing citizens! In short, our communities need your help. Please let your colleagues in the House and Senate know that you are following this legislation and you are concerned for the implications they hold for the cities in your district. 14 of 70 Thank you in advance for your support. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting legislative change preempting local control on growth and development. Sincerely, AlizabeKautz, Mayor City of Burnsville, Minn. 15 of 70 City of Canby April 28, 2021 1: n d h GATEWAY TO THE PRA[REE To: The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s) Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Canby which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments (PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s) that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans, would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward. To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old. To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. 16 of 70 The City of Canby is an Equal Opportunity Employer & Provider A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short,we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. Sincerely, NandY Mayor, City of Canby CCc� Rebecca Schrupp City Administrator 17 of 70 The City of Canby is an Equal Opportunity Employer& Provider From: Courtney Johnson <ciohnson@citvofcarver.com> Subject: City of Carver Opposition to SF969 Date:April 20, 2021 at 9:57:55 AM CDT To: "Sen.Julia Coleman" <sen.iulia.coleman@senate.mn> Cc: Sophia Goetz<sophia.goetz@senate.mn> Good morning Senator Coleman- I understand SF969 is being voted on in the Senate today. I am writing to you to share my opposition to the provisions(20.2 -21.14)which preempt local control and decision making,that are included in this bill. As preemption legislation,this bill erodes or eliminates the local control entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community.A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the exact same regardless of locally identified needs.This is not an approach that I support, nor is it good for the City of Carver and our residents. Attached to this email are the City of Carver's legislative priorities, which City Manager Brent Mareck shared with you earlier this year.They're in no particular order, but you'll see Carver's desire to protect local control and opposition to preemption as the fourth item on the attached list. With your background in City government, I hope you'll understand how important local control is to cities like Carver. I hope you'll vote against SF969 today because of the concerns I've shared with you in this email. If you need any additional information from me, please feel free to reach out. Thank you- Courtney Johnson I Mayor I City of Carver Cell:612-702-7703 Facebook: CaryerMayorCourtney www.CitVOfCarver.com xCA RV ER 18 of 70 CITY OF C HANHASSE N Chanhassen is a Community for Life-Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow April 28, 2021 To: The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, Pratt, Coleman, and Osmek Representative(s) Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, Theis, Morrison, and Boe RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments (PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment)that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans, would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward. To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Natural Area. To not include preservation as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. In Chanhassen, the use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will PH 952.227.1100• www.d.chanhassen.mmus• FX 952.227.1110 19 of 70 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD •PO BOX 147 •CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. A residential PUD was applied to the Prince Property. The gross acreage of this site was approximately 190 acres. The City's Comprehensive Plan had identified a portion of the Prince's property as an extension of the city's premier park at Lake Ann. The application of the City's PUD ordinance facilitated the dedication of 50 acres of woods adjacent to the Lake Ann Park for the right to develop smaller lots (thus more lots)within the developable portion. Without the use the City's PUD Ordinance and density transfer rule the of dedication permanent open space would not been achieved or would have required city acquisition. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives, this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, Elise Ryan Mayor, City of Chanhassen C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities- Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties City Council 20 of 70 Open Letter to our legislators Honorable Senator(s) and Representative(s), On behalf of the constituents of the cities we serve, we write voicing opposition to the many JV $41+Js! =ax 1u s�w..rat Housing First-sponsored legislative initiatives (SF915 / SF914 / SF 80 1)that will be heard in +ne"It4lilAd committee this week and through the end of session. p5 qE V'07rRIJKit Nelin Mww.MH As a collection of preemption legislation, each bill erodes or eliminates the local authority M1"4M entrusted to us in overseeing the growth and development in our cities. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the exact same regardless of locally identified needs. We, as cities, are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans serve as the foundation guiding the many decisions facing a growing community. The various housing bills would have significant long-term implications for these Comprehensive Plans. Any preemption weakening local authority, lessens our ability to develop in a manner desired by our constituents and consistent with our Comprehensive Plan(s). Some would have us believe these bills will enhance new home affordability. This is a false narrative from a couple of perspectives: Where is the data documenting that legislative action will lower the sales price of a new home? Of course, the data does not exist. Instead, you are being asked to create a legislative change, absent any assurances that it will result in a reduced sales price of a new home. Growth brings with it increased cost to a city. These bills serve to limit the ability for a city to recoup these costs from whence they came (the development itself). Not having the authority to equitably collect a fee from developers is not an elimination of a cost-It is a transfer of a cost to our existing taxpayers. These bills would ask us to trade off the possibility of enhanced affordability to a new home buyer, knowing that we are decreasing affordability to our existing citizens as they will be required to pick up these costs through higher tax levy increases. The affordability narrative is false. It lacks data, credibility, and seeing any of these legislation proposals through would serve to raise taxes on our existing citizens. In short, we need your help. Please let your colleagues in the House and Senate know that you are following these bills and you are concerned for the implications they have for the cities in your district. Thank you in advance for your support, any one of us would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting these bills that seek to preempt our local authority. Sincerely, Ronald A. Case, Mayor City of Eden Prairie 21 of 70 4� D i May 5, 2021 To: The Honorable Senator(s) Franzen, Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Edina, I write to request that you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments (PUDs) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, Ist Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. The present version of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their communities. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, regardless of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voices of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/land use/infrastructure investments) that are made in our communities. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and could have significant negative ramifications for our community and others as well. Additionally, the proposed preemption(s) that constrain our local ability to implement PUDs will serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUDs to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUDs give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this, and create a setting where developers, city government officials and residents are all worse off because our options to solve problems have been preempted by state government. EDINA CITY COUNCIL Mayor James B. 1 lovland• Ron Anderson . Carolyn )ackson•James Pierce• Devin Staunton 22 of 704801 West 50th Street• Edina, Minnesota 55424• EdinaiMN.gov.952-927-8861 o Fax 952-826-0390 Finally, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill does not make any meaningful difference in the affordability of new single-family homes. In any community, where the median new build is over $750,000, the regulatory relief proposed in the bill may have 1-2% impact on the price of the median family single family home, but it doesn't come anywhere close to making that home affordable. The Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage a one size fits all approach to land use. It will not work in Edina. I ask you to reconsider the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits-all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. I would welcome the opportunity to speak directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be addressed in your committee. Sincerely, James B. Hovland Mayor CC: Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt Rep. Owen Wirth Rep. Alice Hausman Sen.Joel Hanson Regional Council of Mayors - Caren Dewer League of Minnesota Cities - Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities - Charlie Vander Aarde Municipal Legislative Commission - Tom Poul EDINA CCTV C OUNCIL. Mawr lanie.ti B. B)vland • Joni Bennett • Man! Brinde• lush spra pl,e • Ann 511'ei1.sofl },tilll West �IJt�1 Street ■ I_.Eilflil. �1'�1:liletilaTl V,424 . 1ti'~ti'�I'.1_.C�J17an'f . !U1'• X17?-92i ;861 . kaN 952-826-03YO 23 of 70 * • r r �1 EAGAN April 27, 2021 To: The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s) Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Eagan, which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments (PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial En,rcroossrnent, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city, Any preemption(s) that constrain our ability to implement PUGS, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans, would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PVDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward. To illustrate the need, consider a communitys desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old. To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. MAYOR I MIKE MAGUIRE COUNCIL MEMBERS I PAUL BAKK5N,CYNDEE FIELDS, GARY HANSEN, rl 1.1F+frJA CITYOFEA+GAN.COMy, CITY ADMINISTRATOR I OAVtU M. OSBERCe MUNICIPAL CENTER i 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, -AGAN, MN 55122-1840 MAIN: (H 1j 675.5000 MAINTENANCE: ..ri:,l; r ..; �3i�G UTILITIES: (fiat)675-5.700 IF YOU HAVE A HEARING OR SPEECH DISABILITY,CONTACT US AT(651)675-5000 THROUGH YOUR PREFERRED TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE. 24 of 70 A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this, just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives, this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Si cerely, '= a ike Maguire Mayor, City of Eagan C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities- Charlie Vander Aarde 2 25 of 70 • City of Granite Falls �►� 641 Prentice Street Granite Falls, MN 56241-1598 Phone (320) 564-3011 FAX (320) 564-3013 7-1-1 or 1-800-627-3529 Voice, TTY, ASCII www.granitefalls.com April 28, 2021 To:The Honorable Senators: Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, Pratt, and Lang Representatives: Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, Swedzinski, Miller,and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Granite Falls which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments(PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into the Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision,values,and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment)that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans, would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward. To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. 26 of 70 City of Granite Falls An Equal Opportunity Employer&Provider A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods.The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short,we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. Sincerely, C stat ohnson City Manager 49e4 I " Dave Smiglei"Wk i Mayor 27 of 70 City of Granite Falls An Equal Opportunity Employer&Provider City of Heidelberg PO Box 253,New Pray-'uc:.MN 56071 Phone:(952) 29(]-U5b7 �v�x�v.ci{i rlJlrercle]Ix:rn rrirr.L•r�rar April 26,2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth,and Pratt Representative(s)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnihus Bill Honorable Legislators; On behalf of the City of Heidelberg, which is charged with upholding the health, safety,and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single,family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments(PUD's)provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficioi Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2,Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community.A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Pians.These plans reflect the vision, values,and voice of our citizens.Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment)that are made in our community.The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans,would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed,the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography,wetlands,and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods.The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. 1 28 of 70 Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true,we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability,the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short,we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, f' Lori We)don Mayor, City of Heidelberg C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt Representative Todd Lippert Representative Brian Pfarr Committee Legislative Assistant Lindy Sowmick League of Minnesota Cities-Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities-Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties Mayors&Administrators of Scott&Le Sueur County Le Sueur County Commissioner David Gliszinski City Council &Attorney 2 vcrl - 29 of 70 City of Lakeville Positioned to Thrive May 4, 2021 Senator Rich Draheim Representative Alice Hausman Senator Zach Duckworth Representative Esther Agbaje Senator Gary Dahms Representative Michael Howard Senator Kari Dziedzic Representative Liz Reyer Senator Eric Pratt Representative Tama Theis Minnesota Senate Building State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Omnibus Housing Bill Concerns Dear Conference Committee Members: Throughout the session, we have been closely monitoring legislation regarding housing policy. While many of the policy provisions identified in both the senate and house bills have laudable goals, others are very problematic and would be detrimental to Lakeville and our housing environment. Of particular note is language identified as"Limiting Regulations on Residential Development". Specifically, this language would hamstring the use of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) as well as limit the ability of Lakeville and other cities to create housing developments that are aesthetically consistent with the community standards that our residents have come to expect. Two of our largest and most successful de ve%nments are S,nirit of Brandtien Farms and A von/ea—both of which were PUDs and have created housing for all aces and stages of life(single family, townhome, and multifamily) while also meeting the design needs that make Lakeville such an attractive place to live. Both of these developments were developed as a PUD at the request of the deKiLlo rs because they knew that a one-size-fits all approach would not result in the,product they desired. Lakeville has led the state in single family building permits issued for at least the past six years, all while having design standards in place that have clearly not slowed the demand for our products. We respectfully ask that you support removing these troublesome provisions from the bill as they will have a significant impact on the future of Lakeville's housing market. Thank you for your continued service to the State of Minnesota. Sincerely, Douglas P. Anderson Mayor cc: Lakeville City Council 20195 Holyoke Avenue,Lakeville,MN 55044 30 of 70 952-985-4400.952-985-4499 fax www.lakevillemn.gov CITY OF LAUDERDALE Nil LAUDERDALE CITY HALL CITY 1 891 WALNUT STREET "• , LAUDERDALE, MN 55113 = 651-792-7650 � s MARY.GAASCH@LAUDERDALEMN.ORG April 28, 2021 To: The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s) Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Lauderdale, which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments (PUDs) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. We specifically want to highlight the importance of PUDs. PUDs provide cities and developers a pathway for moving challenging projects forward. In Lauderdale, we are working on a project that will create 114-units of affordable senior housing. This project is vital to providing quality, affordable housing for our seniors when the burdens of home ownership are too great. When our seniors sell their homes,they will become available to new families looking to move into an affordable, welcoming community with good schools and city services. This senior project is happening because the developer is willing to partner with the City on this challenging site. They want to meet the neighbors' expectations yet have enough units to be financially viable. A project like this does not happen without the iterative process that results from residents, the city council, and the developer working together to define standards for the project. That engagement is done through a PUD process; you can't variance your way into good planning on a project of this scale. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, C� Mary Gaasch Mayor, City of Lauderdale 31 of 70 CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAUDERDALE CITY HALL 1891 WALNUT STREET C1TOF LAUDERDALE, MN 55113 651-792-7657 651-631-2066 FAx HEATHER.BUTKOWSKI@LAUDERDALEM N.ORG C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities- Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties City Council 32 of 70 Urn( ui(,�" LE (CENTTF,711K%); HMA of Le Sueur County 10 West Tyrone St.- Le Center, MN 56057.507-357-4450 April 28, 2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Le Center, which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encourogement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments (PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment,that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community.A one-size fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. I As cities,we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans,These plans reflect the vision,values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans, would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. Especially in an older home community such as Le Center. 33 of 70 www.cityoflecenter.com A PUD can also be importantfor a new housing development, Considerthe challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. I In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, Josh Fredrickson, Mayor City of Le Center MN C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman II House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities-- Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties City Council 34 of 70 "Lon"6dale F___D CITY of LoxsDALE•PO Box 357.415 CENTRAL STREET WEST,LONSDALE,MN 55046•PHONE:(507)744-2327•FAx:(507)744-5554 March 16, 2021 Honorable Senator(s) and Representative(s), On behalf of the constituents of the cities we serve, we write voicing opposition to the many legislative initiatives (SF915 /SF914/ SF 801 /HF1085)focused on housing that will be heard in committee this week and through the end of session. As a collection of preemption legislation, each bill erodes or eliminates the local control entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the exact same regardless of locally identified needs. We, as cities, are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans serve as the foundation guiding the many decisions facing a growing community. The various housing bills would have significant long-term implications for these Comprehensive Plans. Any preemption weakening local control, lessens our ability to develop in a manner desired by our constituents and consistent with our Comprehensive Plans. Some might have us believe these legislative proposals will enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives these bills represent a false narrative: "Where is the data documenting that legislative change will lower the sales price of a new home? Of course, the data does not exist. Instead,you are being asked to create a legislative change, absent aM assurances that it would result in a reduced sales price of a new home. Growth brings with it increased cost to a city. The proposed legislation seeks to limit the ability for a city to recoup these costs from whence they came (the development itself). Not having the local control to equitably collect a fee from developers is not an elimination of a cost- It is a transfer of a cost to our existing taxpayers. This legislation would ask us to trade-off the possibility of enhanced affordability for a new home buyer, and at the same time, knowingly decreasing the affordability of housing for our existing homeowners as they will be required to pick up the costs of growth through higher tax levy increases. Again, the affordability narrative is false. It lacks data, credibility, and seeing any of these legislative proposals into law would serve to raise taxes on our existing citizens! In short, we need your help. Please let your colleagues in the House and Senate know that you are following this legislation and you are concerned for the implications they hold for the cities in your district. Thank you in advance for your support, any one of us would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting legislative change preempting local control on growth and development. 35 of 70 Sincerely, Christopher Meyer Joe Julius Mike Franklin Mayor, City of Belle Plaine Mayor, City of Elko New Mayor, City of Jordan Market Tim Rud Thomas Eisert Duane Jirik Mayor, City of Lonsdale Mayor, City of Montgomery Mayor, City of New Prague Kirt Briggs Janet Williams, Bill Mars Mayor, City of Prior Lake Mayor, City of Savage Mayor, City of Shakopee To: Senator Draheim Senator Port Senator Pratt Representative Albright Representative Hanson Representative Mortenson Representative Pfarr cc: Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senator Jasinski, Local Government Policy Committee Chair Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Senator Rarick, Labor and Industry Policy Committee Chair House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt Andy Eilers, Labor and Industry Policy Committee Administrator David Raisanen, Local Government Policy Committee Administrator Joel Hanson, Housing Finance and Policy Committee Administrator Regional Council of Mayors League of Minnesota Cities Metro Cities Association of Minnesota Counties Municipal Legislative Commission City Mayors and Administrators of Scott County 36 of 70 CITY of V1 MINNETONKA I=tr•Iif}O innoIonka 1_'•I ,:i l MlrrleLorT a,MN ;5.-115 l 95 -93"' 200 l -ininn-Tonka,com April 26, 2021 To: Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, Pratt,Johnson Stewart, Franzen and Cwodzinski Honorable Representatives)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer,Theis, Acomb, Pryor and Elkins RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Minnetonka, which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in singie forrrily neighborhoods and the Punned Use Developments{PUD's)provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, Ist Unofficial Enarossment,that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2,Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community, A ane-sire fits-oll approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans.These plans reflect the vision,values, and voice of our citizens.Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community.The provisions in the Senate Housing omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs,or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans,would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth, PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District, As a redevelopment project is proposed,the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating,or increasing community access to these neighborhoods, The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. 37 of 70 Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If tree, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability,the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing Total control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition, I would welcame the opportunity of speaking direc=ly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. r Sincerely, Brad Wiersum Mayor, City of Minnetonka C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan bent Speaker of the House Melissa Hartman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metra Cities- Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties Minnetonka City Council 38 of 70 City Offices 201 Ash Avenue SW MONTGOMERY Montgomery. Mfg 56069 Phone:507.364.888888888�i rr FrI�rr��rrc rrr�7/ic y if pAre Fax.507.364.5371 Website:www.cifyofmontgomerymn.com April 27, 2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth,and Pratt Representative(s)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer,and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Sill Honorable Legislators:. On behalf of the City of Montgomery,which is charged with upholding the health,safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and restricting the use of Planned Unit Developments(PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill,1st Unofficial Engrossment that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2,Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community.This one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same,without regard for the unique local differences and identified needs. As cities, we develop Comprehensive Plans reflective of the vision,values,and voice of our citizens.Once adopted and approved,the Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment)made in our community.The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement Planned Unit Developments(PUDs)or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans,would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need,consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed,the PUD would include aesthetic requirements to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bili,could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography,wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings,developers often choose PUDs to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PVDs give the developer,and the city,a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving,accentuating,or increasing community access to these 39 of 70 neighborhoods.The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability,the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short,we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, Thomas E. Eisert Mayor, City of Montgomery C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan (Cent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities-Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities-Charlie Vander Aarde Minnesota Association of Small Cities—Cap O'Rourke Association of Minnesota.Counties Montgomery City Council Representative Todd Lippert Montgomery City Administrator Brian Heck 40 of 70 City of New Prague In the Counties of Scott&Le Sueur 118 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTH •NEW PRAGUE,MINNESOTA 56071 �� p �r PHONE(952)758-4401 •www.ci.new-prague.mn.us NEW PRAGUE Duane J.Jiirik 4 Tiadiliuii of 11 orm Mayor March 16, 2021 Honorable Senator(s) and Representative(s), On behalf of the constituents of the cities we serve, we write voicing opposition to the many legislative initiatives (SF 915/SF 914/SF 801/ HF 1085)focused on housing that will be heard in committee this week and through the end of session. As a collection of preemption legislation, each bill erodes or eliminates the local control entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the exact same regardless of locally identified needs. We, as cities, are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision,values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans serve as the foundation guiding the many decisions facing a growing community. The various housing bills would have significant long- term implications for these Comprehensive Plans. Any preemption weakening local control, lessens our ability to develop in a manner desired by our constituents and consistent with our Comprehensive Plans. Some might have us believe these legislative proposals will enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives these bills represent a false narrative: "Where is the data documenting that legislative change will lower the sales price of a new home? Of course,the data does not exist. Instead, you are being asked to create a legislative change, absent any assurances that it would result in a reduced sales price of a new home. Growth brings with it increased cost to a city. The proposed legislation seeks to limit the ability for a city to recoup these costs from whence they came (the development itself). Not having the local control to equitably collect a fee from developers is not an elimination of a cost- It is a transfer of a cost to our existing taxpayers. This legislation would ask us to trade-off the possibility of enhanced affordability for a new home buyer, and at the same time, knowingly decreasing the affordability of housing for our existing homeowners as they will be required to pick up the costs of growth through higher tax levy increases. Again, the affordability narrative is false. It lacks data, credibility, and seeing any of these legislative proposals into law would serve to raise taxes on our existing citizens! 41 of 70 1 In short,we need your help. Please let your colleagues in the House and Senate know that you are following this legislation and you are concerned for the implications they hold for the cities in your district. Thank you in advance for your support, any one of us would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting legislative change preempting local control on growth and development. Sincerely, Christopher Meyer Joe Julius Mike Franklin Mayor, City of Belle Plaine Mayor, City of Elko New Market Mayor, City of Jordan Tim Rud Thomas Eisert Duane Jirik Mayor, City of Lonsdale Mayor, City of Montgomery Mayor, City of New Prague Kirt Briggs Janet Williams, Bill Mars Mayor, City of Prior Lake Mayor, City of Savage Mayor, City of Shakopee To: Senator Draheim Senator Port Senator Pratt Representative Albright Representative Hanson Representative Mortenson Representative Pfarr cc: Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senator Jasinski, Local Government Policy Committee Chair Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Senator Rarick, Labor and Industry Policy Committee Chair House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt Andy Eilers, Labor and Industry Policy Committee Administrator David Raisanen, Local Government Policy Committee Administrator Joel Hanson, Housing Finance and Policy Committee Administrator Regional Council of Mayors League of Minnesota Cities Metro Cities Association of Minnesota Counties Municipal Legislative Commission City Mayors and Administrators of Scott County New Prague City Council 42 of 70 2 April 25, 2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s) Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer,and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of New Ulm, which is charged with upholding the health,safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments(PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unof ficia!Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities, we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans.These plans reflect the vision,values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community.The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans, would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed,the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old. To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating,or increasing community access to these neighborhoods.The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. 43 of 70 Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative. If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability,the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all.This concept places both risk and an unnecessary burden on local residents who vote locallyto elect leadersthat will best address local development needs with what best works for their communities. In short, I ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, U Andrea Boettger City Council President and Interim Mayor, City of New Ulm C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities-Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties City Council i i i 44 of 70 ■ R e • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 April 26, 2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments(PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities,we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans,would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these 45 of 70 neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+ cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, Mary McComber Mayor, City of Oak Park Heights C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities- Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties City Council 46 of 70 O� P RIpV� � AN q �' 4646 Dakota Street SE I Prior Lake, MN 55372 952.447.9800 1 www.cityofpriorlake.com `11NNEW April 26, 2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Prior Lake, which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments(PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities,we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision,values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans,would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. 47 of 70 Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is a false narrative! If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, Kirt Briggs Mayor, City of'Prior Lake C.C. Governor Tim Walz Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt Chief Elected and Appointed Officers of SCALE Regional Council of Mayors- Caren Dewer League of Minnesota Cities- Daniel Lightfoot, Irene Kao Metro Cities- Charlie Vander Aarde Association of Minnesota Counties Municipal Legislative Commission-Tom Poul Prior Lake City Council City Mayors and Administrators of Scott County Scott County Commissioners 48 of 70 2 SHAKO1 EE May 4, 2021 To: The Honorable Senators Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt The Honorable Representatives Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis Re: Opposition to certain items currently in the Senate Omnibus Housing Bill (SF 969) Dear Honorable Legislators: The City of Shakopee has serious concerns with certain provisions related to housing policy currently in the Senate Omnibus Housing Bill (SF 909). We believe it is imperative to inform you of items in SF 969 that will adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of not only our residents, but the residents in your communities as well. Our state rias a and, prouc history of loc.-i' c'_r,t o! of local issues. We as a city believe that it is the local cornmunities ';'` carc. rst. s!!i` r! to local needs. Article 2, Section 8 (Limiting Regulation on Residemial Developni ,r t) eviscerr res that prop.,;-1 history and ignores the important differences between cities as it atten-ipts to wrap all communities into one cookie-cutter effort. The City of Shakopee has just spec 1: �.-v,}ral years developing our award winning comprehensive plan (Envision Shakopee) that has been recognized for giving our residents a voice in how our city develops. Not all communities are alike in expectations, needs, budgets, geography, demographics or even values. Our comprehensive plan is the guiding document for all our infrastructure decisions. and it has taken all those items and more into consideration as it guides development in the city by using this locally generated Cool. This is not unlike the process that has occurred in your communities. You have been told that cities are an impediment to affordable housing and somehow this will increase affordability. In Shakopee, we believe that growth should pay for itself. Current residents should not have the burden of subsidizing the efforts of developers or future residents. We also believe that our community should offer the opportunity for the development of all types of housing, and our local policies encourage that effort. This legislative action will pass the developers responsibility onto current taxpayers. You might even have been led to believe that"Up to 913 of a new home's price in the Twin Cities comes from regulation and localpolicies."That is just plain false and not backed tip by any serious analysis. Drivers will always be the cost of land, labor and materials. In Shakopee, our fees represent 2.74%of an average new home's price. And these fees go to ensure that a q u:i i;;" and safe product is being produced for our futu-e residents. r,nn'f''-il[II?e rii to puolic sorvice and respectfully ask for your opposition to this efi CJ,�,. William P. Mars Mayor #30 in PvIur; , r,. :1t:;`Irle . s,? F',aces to Live" League of 1+9i:'n ;,oto Cities C_;ity of Excellence" International int (='i c-f of Police"Leadership Award" COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 city of Shakopee 1 495 Garman St.,Shakopee MN 55379 1 Phone:952-233-9300 Fax:952-233.3801 1 www.ShakopeeMN.gov 49 of 70 Spring Lake Park History.Community.Home. May 5, 2021 Dear Members of the Housing Conference Committee(HF 1077): The City of Spring Lake Park would like to state its opposition to Article 2, Section 7 and 8 of the Senate bill limits regulations on residential development, including restrictions on planned unit developments and aesthetic conditions. The City of Spring Lake Park uses the Planned Unit Development language as a tool to facilitate in-fill development. Just last year,the City received a proposal from a developer who was purchasing excess property from a local church for 6 housing units. The size of the land made it prohibitive to facilitate that level of density on the site. The City Council worked closely with the developer to draft a PUD ordinance that would reduce the minimum let width from 75 feet to 50 feet and the side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 7 feet, which facilitated the development. The City did not put onerous requirements on the developer for that flexibility. As of today,two houses have received their certificate of occupancy and have been purchased. The other four units are currently under construction. The PUD process is more efficient that granting numerous variances as the PUD ordinance adopts the specific plan agreed upon by the City and the developer. There is no risk to the developer that the City unintentionally missed a code provision that would apply,thereby delaying the project by requiring the developer to apply for another variance. Planned Unit Developments, like the one referenced above, are a win-win for the developer and the City. It provides flexibility to permit a development that would otherwise not happen on difficult to develop parcels. We have used it successfully to facilitate construction of 194 units of affordable senior housing in partnership with Dominium, a new Hy-Vee grocery store, and a new 32-unit assisted living/memory care project by Hampton Companies. Cities like Spring Lake Park are responsible stewards of the local control authority given to it by the State of Minnesota. Without our PUD authority,we would not have been able to facilitate over$50 million in development and redevelopment projects over the past 5 years. Please don't take this valuable tool away. r S.incerel �� n Daniel R. Buchholtz, MMC Administrator, Clerk/Treasurer cc: Mayor Nelson and Members of the City Council State Representative Erin Koegel State Representative Connie Bernardy State Senator Jerry Newton State Senator Mary Kunesli City of Spring Lake Park 1301 81st Avenue NE I Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 P) 763-784-6491 F) 763-792-7257 50 of 70 www.sipmn.org I'*W CITY OF 60 Kiry 8301 Valley Creek Road • Woodbury, MN 55125-3330 • woodburymn.gov (651) 714-3500 • TDD (651) 714-3568 • FAX (651) 714-3501 May 21, 2021 Senator Susan Kent 95 University Avenue W. Minnesota Senate Bldg, Room 2227 St. Paul, MN 55155 Rep. Steve Sandell District 53B 521 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Rep.Ton Xiong District: 53A 533 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Opposition to Housing Legislative Initiatives (SF9i5/ SF914 / SF Bol/ HFio85) Dear Honorable Senator and Representatives: On behalf of the constituents of Woodbury, I am voicing opposition to the many legislative initiatives (SF915 / SF914 / SF 801 /HF 1085)focused on housing that are being considered through the end of session. As a collection of preemption legislation, each bill erodes or eliminates the local control entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the exact same regardless of locally identified needs. These legislative proposals are being promoted on the basis that they will enhance new home affordability. From what I have seen, there has been no independent data documenting that legislative change will actually lower the net sales price of a new home. Instead, you are being asked to create a significant legislative change absent any concrete assurances that it would result in a reduced sales price of a new home. I continue to believe that housing will be priced based on what the market will bear, as it always has been, and any legislatively achieved reduction of 51 of 70 Re: Opposition to Housing Legislative Initiatives(SF915/SF914/SF 801/HF1085) May 21,2021 Page 2 city fees will go to the bottom line of Building BATC-Housing First Minnesota members—not to the home buyers as alleged. These housing fees preemption bills will in reality transfer cost to our existing taxpayers. The proposed legislation seeks to limit the ability for a city to recoup these costs from whence they came (the development itself). Not having the local control to equitably collect a fee from developers is not an elimination of a cost—it is a cost shift to the public. Furthermore, this legislation would ask cities to trade-off the possibility of enhanced affordability for a new home buyer, and at the same time, knowingly decreasing the affordability of housing for our existing homeowners as they will be required to pick up the costs of growth through higher tax levy increases. Lastly, the various housing bills would have significant long-term implications for our Comprehensive Plans. Cities are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision, values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans serve as the foundation guiding the many decisions facing a growing community. Any preemption weakening local control lessens our ability to develop in a manner desired by our constituents and consistent with our Comprehensive Plans. Thank you in advance for your support. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting legislative change preempting local control on growth and development. Sincerely, Anne Burt Mayor C: Governor Tim Walz Regional Council of Mayors League of Minnesota Cities Metro Cities Association of Minnesota Counties Municipal Legislative Commission Woodbury City Council 52 of 70 J Y V+Q May 19, 2021 To:The Honorable Senator(s) Dahms, Dziedzic, Draheim, Duckworth, and Pratt Representative(s)Agbaje, Hausman, Howard, Reyer, and Theis RE: Opposition to encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and to the Planned Use Developments provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill Honorable Legislators: On behalf of the City of Wyoming which is charged with upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all our residents, I write requesting you oppose the encouragement of increased density in single family neighborhoods and the Planned Use Developments(PUD's) provisions in the Senate Omnibus Bill, 1st Unofficial Engrossment, that is moving into your Housing Conference Committee. Article 2, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1st Unofficial Engrossment of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, contains preemptive provisions that erode or eliminate the local controls entrusted to cities in overseeing the growth and development of their community. A one-size-fits-all approach attacks the fundamental importance of local control and treats every city in the state the same, irrespective of local differences and identified needs. As cities,we are required to develop Comprehensive Plans. These plans reflect the vision,values, and voice of our citizens. Once adopted and approved, Comprehensive Plans guide every decision (zoning/infrastructure investment) that are made in our community. The provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill encouraging the permitting of duplexes through fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods is contrary to the comprehensive planning process and would have significant negative ramifications for our city. Any preemption(s)that constrain our ability to implement PUDs, or decrease the ability to rely on our Comprehensive Plans,would serve to transfer significant financial burden to existing residents and taxpayers to pick up costs of growth. PUDs provide developers and cities alike a pathway for moving challenging projects forward.To illustrate the need, consider a community's desire to preserve the character of a Historic District. As a redevelopment project is proposed, the PUD of today includes aesthetics to ensure the new structures blend with the old.To not include aesthetics as a vital component of a PUD as proposed in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill, could serve to adversely impact adjacent properties and allow the character of an area to be lost. A PUD can also be important for a new housing development. Consider the challenge of building in an area of land having varied natural features of topography, wetlands, and significant trees. In these settings, developers often choose PUD's to address unique project needs not covered in a city's base zoning code. PUD's give the developer and the city a framework for maximizing the potential for housing in this difficult setting while preserving, accentuating, or increasing community access to these 53 of 70 neighborhoods. The language of the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would have negative implications for projects like this,just as it did in the Historic District above. Some might have you believe the provisions in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would enhance new home affordability. From several perspectives,this is narrative is not accurate. If true, we would have been presented with the objective data with a demonstrated connection to a lower sales price on a new home. Instead of confirmatory data on affordability, the Senate Housing Omnibus bill would ask cities and taxpayers to trade-off a possibility of affordability in exchange for reducing local control and to encourage one-size fits all. In short, we ask you to oppose the language within the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that reduces local control and encourages a one-size-fits all approach across the 850+cities and 87 counties in Minnesota. Thank you in advance for your opposition. I would welcome the opportunity of speaking directly with you on the importance of thwarting the preemptive language in the Senate Housing Omnibus bill that will be brought into your committee. Sincerely, Lisa Iverson Mayor, City of Wyoming C.C. Wyoming city council League of Minnesota cities 54 of 70 From: Jennifer Pinski To: Andrew Kealev Cc: Eric Johnson Subject: FW:Contact Us(form)has been filled out on your site. Date: Thursday,May 27,20212:32:53 PM Andy, Please pass this on to the park kid that worked last night. -----Original Message----- From:Please Do Not Click Reply<support(i�govoffice.com> Sent: Thursday,May 27,2021 1:44 PM To: Jennifer Pinski<jpinski�cityofoakparkheights.com> Subject: Contact Us(form)has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a form. Form: Contact Us Site URL:www.cityofoakparkheights.com ------------------------------------------------- Name:Margaret Irwin Street Address: 5645 Newell Circle North Phone No.: 651-343-4723 Email Address: domargirwin(i�gmail.com Question or Comment: I just want to say how impressed we were with the young man who was washing the windows at Cover Park when we arrived to set up for our event last night. He was so friendly,cheerful,courteous, and he helped us move tables. He probably would have washed the windows on my car if I asked him to do it! It was a perfect facility for our gathering of 28. We brought a couple of extra tables and people remarked at how nice it was to have the indoor space with all of the outlets for our chili fest. We are a group of single people 55 and over so it was great to have such convenient and clean bathrooms too. Thank you so much! Margaret Irwin and the SOLO 55 PLUS group Do Not Click Reply-This e-mail has been generated from a super form. 55 of 70 From: Mary Mccomber To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd:ARPA Supporting Housing Stability and Income Security Date: Saturday,May 22,20217:25:44 AM For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From: National League Of Cities(NLC)<news@nlc.org> To: marymccomber@aol.com Sent: Sat, May 22, 2021 6:04 am Subject: ARPA Supporting Housing Stability and Income Security News,resources and events for local leaders and staff. 8 ARPA Supporting Housing Stability and Income Security Beyond providing a once-in-a-generation pipeline of funding for all local governments, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and the prior stimulus measures, support implementation of a holistic strategy that links housing stability with income security, food assistance, unemployment insurance, childcare benefits, and other resources. The most important tasks for local government leaders is to use the information resources from NLC and their state leagues to understand the eligibility and application process for these funds. ■ 56 of 70 NLC Delivers Why the Time is Now to Supporting Innovative Promoting Equitable Vaccine Support Employee Solutions to Local Water Access Through Innovative Ownership Challenges Transportation Initiatives ■ ■ ■ IF Industry News What We're Reading: • Cities like Arlington can help Congress with infrastructure plans for a better future - Fort Worth Star-Telegram (May 21, 2021) • Cities navigate how to maximize incoming American Rescue Plan funds- Smart Cities Dive (May 18. 2021) • Commentary: Don't let new infrastructure projects leave our neighbors disconnected - The Post and Courier(May 16, 2021) • American Rescue Plan Monies Coming to Local Governments - SQR Magazine (May 15, 2021) 57 of 70 Announcements NEW: 2021 Corporate Partner Catalogue NLC corporate partners are dedicated to making NLC the premier resource for local governments and stand by that commitment by offering value-added solutions and cost savings to our members and their residents. Take a look at our 2021 Corporate Partner Catalogue to learn more! View Now> JOIN US: Healthy Housing Learning Lab On Thursday, May 27, hear from subject matter experts on how federal supports such as the American Rescue Plan Act (can support local housing and health equity. Register Here > LAST CHANCE TO APPLY: Equitable Economic Mobility Initiative Apply to NLC's Equitable Economic Mobility Initiative by May 26, 2021 to work with NLC staff and field experts, engage peer learning networks and receive up to $100,000 in grant funds for planning and implementation of equitable economic mobility strategies. Apply Now> Cities in the Cloud Survey Has your city been using cloud computing for years? Did the COVID-19 pandemic expedite your cloud adoption strategy?Take this NLC survey to share your thoughts on cloud computing and inform future research to help cities navigate this transition to (or expansion of) cloud computing. Take the Survey > NEW: Economic Recovery and Employee Ownership Report This report offers insight into the potential employee ownership has as a tool for driving equitable economic recovery and growth; includes case studies; and details several low- cost, high-impact steps that cities can take to catalyze employee ownership at the local level. Learn More > ®w 58 of 70 Job Openings See who's hiring right now: • Environmental Regulatory Coordinator- City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services • City Planner- City of Stephenville • Deputy City Manager- City of Burleson ■ Helpful NLC Links: Articles Upcoming Events FRI Resources &Training Advocacy If this message is not displaying properly, please view in browser. National League of Cities You may opt out of email communications from NLC at any time. Update your communication preferences. This message was intended for: marymccomber@aol.com 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20001 Privacy Policy I @ 2021 NLC, All Rights Reserved 59 of 70 From: Mary Mccomber To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd: Member Resources-Use ARPA Funds To Ease Budget Shortfalls Date: Wednesday,May 26,20218:16:08 AM For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From: Alejandra from NLC <membership@nlc.org> To: marymccomber@aol.com Sent: Wed, May 26, 2021 8:05 am Subject: Member Resources- Use ARPA Funds To Ease Budget Shortfalls Access your weekly)NNL�C member roundup! u May 26, 121 -Midwest Region u How To Use Coronavirus State & Local Recovery Funds To Ease Budget Shortfalls Using the American Rescue Plan Act to avoid cuts to valuable government services: Did you know that you can lean on ARPA to ensure that your community can continue providing valuable government services? Use this resource to understand how to supplement general revenues. ■ Upcoming National Rural Business Summit: Strengthening Vaccinations in Rural Areas 60 of 70 and Small Cities Thursday, June 3, 2021 -1:OOPM ET The Health Action Alliance, COVID Collaborative and partners representing rural America host a National Business Summit. REGISTER HERE > Pride Month Local Leader Q&A Monday, June 7, 2021 -4:OOPM ET ®4 Join NLC in a conversation with local leaders from our LGBTQ+ Local Officials constituency group in a discussion about equity. REGISTER HERE > Wildfire Risk and Resilience Webinar Thursday, June 10 -2:30PM ET ®4 Learn more about the new wildfire risk tool and hear from leaders who are building local wildfire resilience. REGISTER HERE > Advancing Legislation for Equality Tuesday, June 22 -3:OOPM ET Join NLC for a conversation on the Equality Act hosted by NLC's LGBTQ+ Local Officials Constituency Group. REGISTER HERE > Leading Equitable Communities: Respond, Recover, Rebuild Conference Thursday, July 8 -Friday July 9 This two-day conference is focused on equity and building local leader skills to lead equitable communities. REGISTER HERE > ■ 61 of 70 NLC Delivers ARPA Resources How the American Rescue Plan Act is Supporting Food Access and Jobs a A Local Leader's Guide to Talking About the American Rescue Plan Act The American Rescue Plan Act supports the recovery of our communities—and therefore the recovery of our nation— by providing direct and flexible funding to local governments. NLC has created a customizable guide based on your location to talking about the American Rescue Plan Act. ■ Cities in the Cloud Survey a 19 Cities in the Cloud Survey Economic Recovery and Has your city been using cloud Employee Ownership Report computing for years? Did the COVID-19 This report offers insight into the pandemic expedite your cloud adoption potential employee ownership has as a strategy? Take this NLC survey to share tool for driving equitable economic your thoughts on cloud computing and recovery and growth; includes case inform future research to help cities studies; and details several low-cost, 62 of 70 navigate this transition to (or expansion high-impact steps that cities can take to of) cloud computing. � catalyze employee ownership at the ■ • ■ local level. How to Spend Coronavirus Cities Must Speak Up on State & Local Recovery Their Priorities for Funds Transportation Under ARPA, state and local governments have access to helpful This week, the Senate Environment and funds that are aimed at helping Public Work Committee (EPW) has communities recover from the economic kicked off the first transportation play of impact of the latest pandemic. Use this the new Congress with the introduction resource to learn the dos and don'ts of of the Surface Transportation how to appropriately spend moneys Reauthorization Act of 2021. NLC's initial allocated. review of the bill shows some key gains ■ for cities. Asian American and Pascific Islander Heritage Month a Thanks for reading the latest articles and events from the NLC, where local leaders and their staff go to learn and grow. 'Til next time! 63 of 70 From: Mary Mccomber To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd:Special Public Safety Edition:Say His Name—One Year Later Date: Saturday,May 29,20216:58:32 AM For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From: National League Of Cities(NLC)<news@nlc.org> To: marymccomber@aol.com Sent: Sat, May 29, 2021 6:04 am Subject: Special Public Safety Edition: Say His Name—One Year Later News,resources and events for local leaders and staff. Say His Name — One Year Later Say His Name — One Year Later A year ago this week, a brave young woman, Darnella Frazier, captured what would be the most traumatic and impactful video many of us have ever seen. That video showed the world the callous murder of George Floyd and sparked outrage and an international movement. This moment, in the midst of a global pandemic, had the potential to change the trajectory of how we approach public safety in cities. Municipal leaders are at the forefront of this momentum. ■ 64 of 70 SCOTUS Rejects Broad Wildfire Risk to Leveraging American Rescue Community Caretaking Communities: A New Tool to Plan Act Funds to Improve Exception to Warrant Reduce Risk for Cities Mental Health &Wellbeing Requirement ■ ■ ■ IF Industry News What We're Reading: • In Kansas City, a wave of evictions could push gun violence to new extremes this year- The Kansas City Star(May 23, 2021) • To reduce shootings, Mayor Kenney says the city will invest more in community- based programs- The Philadelphia Inquirer(May 19, 2021) • Oakland Becomes Latest City Looking To Take Police Out Of Some Nonviolent 911 Calls -NPR(May 18, 2021) • Missoula courts, law enforcement agree to `second chance' program for skipping court-Missoula Current(May 14, 2021) • Brooklyn Center mayor proposes major public safety changes -MPR News (May 9, 2021) • 'Everybody needs a shoulder to lean on': Credible messenger program connects mentors with at-risk youth - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (May 5, 2021) Announcements Public Safety Budgeting Earlier this month, NLC and our Reimagining Public Safety Task Force convened subject matter experts and local leaders to explore how cities have historically allocated public safety resources and shared insights on local innovations emerging across the country. Learn More> Public Safety Culture: Increasing Accountability Last month, Mayor Baraka and Mayor-President Weston Broome joined NYPD 65 of 70 Commissioner Dermot Shea and Minister Kirsten John Foy to discuss cities advancing equitable approaches to public safety through holding law enforcement agencies, elected officials and systems accountable for public safety results. Learn More> Leading Equitable Communities: Respond, Recover, Rebuild Join NLC's REAL Team and Constituency Groups, July 8-9 for a two-day conference focused on equity and building local leader skills and knowledge on how to lead equitable communities. Register Here> Maintaining Your City's Public Safety and Emergency Response Services NLC's COVID-19 Principle Response Brief provides guidance and outlines specific actions cities can take to maintain public safety and emergency response services during this pandemic. Learn More> How State and Local Governments Can Work Together to Create Better, Safer Communities While many cities and towns are ready and willing to reimagine public safety for their communities, they are oftentimes constrained by preemption or a lack of resources. This presents an opportunity for state governments to aid local leaders by providing resources and support. Learn More> Job Openings See who's hiring right now: • Town Manager-Town of Nags Head, NC • City Planner- City of Stephenville, TX • Environmental Regulatory Coordinator- City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services ■ Helpful NLC Links: Articles 66 of 70 4 1� Q r- +� 9 T � 1L -77� �`. 'd r(.�.� f'4`--�`` moi"'• � � y Fr if 4 u i 68 of 70 l r } F r F 69 of 70 4 N L : � Pr y x, 3 k --::a.�'�:m�Aas.'ir.Si.,3..�+n.xSn��,xv:�.' -v.,:F. ,,e'-a: ...:___a.-a.�s-n';..rbti�'s k-.w..:i �'.•._.,-I.�m c..---.��'-^ �.�.,4:,,-;_ 'ucniti.scF.._�..i + ... 70 of 70