HomeMy WebLinkAbout6B Scott County Local Sales Tax for Transit & Transportation ( Q )
44646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake,MN 55372
Niitso'tt"
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 2015
AGENDA#: 6B
PREPARED BY: FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER
PRESENTED BY: COMMISSIONERS BEARD AND ULRICH AND ADMINISTRATOR
SHELTON
AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION; SCOTT COUNTY LOCAL SALES TAX FOR TRANSIT
AND TRANSPORTATION
PRESENTATION: The Scott County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to consider a
proposal to dedicate a local sales tax to transit and transportation at their
meeting last week. Instead the Board decided not to take action until they
had the opportunity to address local municipal officials and answer
whatever questions might be asked about the proposal.
Commissioners Beard and Ulrich together with County Administrator
Shelton have asked to address the Council.
For background information, we have included the following:
• A SCALE TED memo on the topic
• A Scott County Report on the subject
• Shakopee Chamber and Visitors Bureau Report
• Draft letter from the Mayor to our county
At the conclusion of the presentation the City Council should decide if they
wish to express any opinion one way or the other on the topic. The Scott
County Board is scheduled to take action on the subject on May 12, 2015.
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245/www.cityofpriorlake.com
z; ., ,O? _ Transportation &
*14'�f
, Economic Development
Scott County Association For Leadership And Efficiency Committee
Members MEMORANDUM
Bob Crawford TO: Scott County Board of Commissioners
Elko New Market Mayor
Michael Huntington FROM: SCALE Transportation & Economic Development Committee (TED)
New Market Township
Supervisor SUBJECT: TED Support of Sales Tax Implementation
Ron Jabs
Minnesota Valley Electric DATE: April 17, 2015
Cooperative
At the TED meeting on April 17, 2015 we discussed the County Board's impending decision on
Mike Kinney the implementation of the sales tax for transportation purposes. TED would like the following
Prior Lake City Council to be read into the record as part of the discussion recognizing this is not support by any
Bruce Malkerson agency but as consensus of a group of residents who have provided transportation direction for
Scott County Property SCALE and Scott County.
Owner
TED has consistently produced work products that support the value of"working together
Kathy Neilsen makes our Community stronger and that if a project is completed anywhere in the Community
Spring Lake Township
Clerk it benefits all in the Community". That is critical to our support as we believe the projects listed
provide that type of value to the whole Community and understand that though all projects will
Randy Sampson not be completed within the taxing period,these are important projects to move forward. The
Canterbury Park outcomes from the proposed projects promote safety, mobility and economic development as
John Schmitt noted in the Board's presentation to SCALE and are consistent with TED's goals.
Former Mayor Shakopee
Besides the Board's outcomes noted above we offer the following reasons for implementing the
Brad Tabke tax:
Shakopee Mayor • The ability to collaborate with other partners and leverage other funding sources such
Jon Ulrich as Federal or State dollars.
County Commissioner • The fact that it is estimated that approximately 30%of the funds come from sources
outside of Scott County. We truly believe all of the projects listed are critical to our
Charlie Vig Community and the fact that funds outside of the property tax levy can be utilized is a
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community benefit to our residents and supports a user tax concept.
• The transit component is a needed element of our transportation system to support
Janet Williams economic development within our communities.
Savage Mayor • By implementing the tax for the set period of seven (7)years,the tax will generate
Cy Wolf enough revenue to impact several projects,will end and then allow the Community to
Sand Creek Township review and have a discussion at that time on needs moving forward.
Chair • The Legislature provided us an opportunity to support these projects and the time is
now to utilize this opportunity before it is gone or altered.
The accomplishments of our Community have been numerous over the past decade and that is
based on the trust and collaborative vision we have forged together. This is another step in
being able to complete that vision and support our common goals.
Z,---1,=•a.
` -
`cryg �o 0111111
1111
flfliflI:
Nt` m C. •o
'
m� a 4) aooo N n ,
0
'g
r
t
t. m . r mc •-`"z .-'
t
a
.IlL
ai iPI
coaoX o.m mo2o Icm0�,L44 naky4.-
,„ zteaE_) (,52.-G2). <71a1 Eo >.a cme �� c , wC - xo >. aoo E LNdl F12.-a E2.. mU5x
iv-
out a Fa-.”,, c C U m >m L § o� vro-i cN@mo0
0aom aEaEc om nroc- oO •a111 .......% C omirlma2oma) - o N � E 3.: ouO-L.L. Xi LI La y g,-oOU 1 .L. OCNmAm
oo)o Emw-oz ccc 4con« x acCHO 22.42 ''' 'y•• oU Op0O OeccN a
= mm3UyE1C6~NOmmco U cmOy V0 2amN
= 2 t3aam ~ oacam 2,-q ,q rN.10:5., -m N t Ucop �„,`43
m oNA
QN ° - Eo cx ` mOL ° 3 am co owoNnx 7
•1 - Q UNa coo” LcmN OCNmtomwC-2.(2.
��V (A ma� O Ld). = O -ow-0= 8 a) ..En moNo >, c >� CNsm amoU > mmc > -0 g >.�LE a `cU06 ° E -gE m '4) c) (2 - 20imI- .comma E-c - a Z'aa- mLL� ° 0 ' 8LEm 0x.. ocL--~ oa > cEoE II oomL >.
E c6i00 ,„ E oQ _ o h= mgr ooca, m •1 +
- . p 2m MNFNz ',7, ..9-0 § Cmo
- 2 rnamoa� >mo oomN mo >NcymoEEm a�L- c m y s
' "_ N" m > ` =. oc odLmoaOomNe ) E� p ,O'p0 - 0 .L D O 0 (66 O N -0a) OtsC0Yc 0 > mc c.ccm accam'
ro'419--'-'1,W y mEm VEa ,, d6; o.ea � m) ccs0E0-o0
Z ° mo o5@ ' >• ' Eo mm ` ayo0
$ ) vU 'mmod - 5 a. c2 '01' ) 0maa p § a) -' '. mE ac � 4 � mE > cm 2. @, ,t . 22LoLOEio $ tF- ,,. . ..Ek- E � � aa
,. _ _
, , : ,
/111614
III
•
z -
sn uns No.on morns-94£9-964(Z96)
S;o a f o a d p a p u a to w 0 o a ll MST HW'uoplos'31!ust LnunnD 009 ;+•+�
. ....a....,....„m.a ..mow X L'j, u o�;L;a o d S u e a l .__._.___�uauxlgan.a loo!sAVd *13.1`".
,I1N1100110JS
C aeDab. „
»'a aya may oy3
z
N , � b y
9
- ,
m
.._,..... .fig.
.2,..P.1.1981-13/SE-1 ET
uaD,or® wawaae!datl a8pu8/a8uespsawli HJ/S6-! at
"' '"" (a2ue1.13n1UlJssedren0uamoyJ) it
n_ L.: - twaw.01dwl)op!u0]ET Aemyf!H
p ® (p (ai!wasoA R emuaamlaq peoy aBeluo)if at
4 swawanwdu I)opwoD£I Aemyf!H
u8!sa0 asset-x7 pue 6
I\, sluawanoldun uo!uasaaiul Z4 HJ LEI Aem1B!!
'... J Aio de]a8 ®Alla
py 41.10181.1111too1869T AemV'!N B
44
asei.,c:�d 4:' !9.
4(3l., J sivawanwdwl uo!laaslawl TZHDL ETAemgN!H L
ZSZ Aem8!
fA (G 4 H P.,'i8 HD 7I HJ 1e 9
�,1; wone)edaS aper LT HJ
CCwalsAS peotl a8eluwi 69t AemN9!H 5
aDe.es aBueVa+aluI t4/69T AemyB!H 4
a8ueywalul Zat/69T Aemy9!H E
..,.��. IL Aemy9!H o1691 nem46,H 1
IS1
i4P - ww+uo�sua1R3N(HD)AemyB!H AlunoJ
(/.1 ' ssedsanp£HJ/69T Ae.4374 T
`s--'—'\---m. ® ap!mAwnoD-Ielld37 3,,,madolsuul --
,t pa(p)a'ma dal
9sn patoid papuawwo3ay
c a
Y C m <-76 w E V)
,., C a iI,sL ° O CU u0i f0 CO N ,_ co''''''., #0
.L- O
0 E 0 o o m •�O m W a)
U o>'No t a3 0) m o� a co.�°' �°) c
a) 0.a E oo Q`L• .� c (a o� aa))�� m23 o
Etcocrnm CO > W E o oc`1 ° at E
C1 0'm°-0 �P-0 o E • o Q a E L a= o 0 Q :;
C on.U-cam) o= a •E a ?'a o mE Q > � u o0- >,
v a -- 0 ' 0 N
i 15 C2
a 0 lD O N-c a)N 0 d 'a C -t .- Q C a C m 0 N
L/3 •
N g)a-2'
0 0' 2 a) a W p_ E Y, c- C --. > U V
If- o � c 8:-E 0) aL 1".„, a) O O N m > om c
C1 O .6:2 ,0 ° . 2-g-ur a = cam 0.) m m 1_ E a v L o 0 a
w .�T:'-c O m E O O 0 f0= 0.a-.-:
a m a= c
d wU Oo CNp CX 0 a AWL c � Obi w d) 003 co0 m
.Q c E O N 0.0 ca "O N C a) a) C D - 0 0 ->''U o f C
_ = a>U C C)) w c = N L E -c co 8 c 8 ai
C u, c0aLc.no � ._ o) = ono > a) &_) o o m �Um 12ccs °-m
O - o��Ya� a- N 0 ..N_. O0 aunt Ea Etc@ wE c.c-
++ odo0 ° m �aa � u• E oau, E as a' a) 07E �' m
R3 0= ac c u) •- c o a c` o m m co E x c o t c
N a C'o >• 0 0 ca C O O 0 )n C a a) O P co 0 0 0 U uJ
O m o a 0 m a•� Z's. rno .- 0 0)E m O u 0 0 m `
rr u) L cna- .�•� m"' _ m o o a d .-. =a .- o�
L a) E Q Q N- N 0.) N 0 ..0- N (O u) ct C1 O _ C 0-> u) m
O w > cm._ 3m o -07.,-0 ( , Ea`) miaa) m0W ca wo@ L,-a,-
'
.
'' .L o 2 c0 a c C c c a _� O o a3 > LL) E m
d mEtmo.E � � E 3E m ° rnti' 0-� U, (T.')
0F= cA F- Q° p _,,, c@ Via)
p.m* w E >,mtQOE of •c =-ao ° ' 00 a c-c Nvp c -
d E� mm%) c) � a) al 7-2, as E nc c ,;.a,-E- ' m- oai
�' O a)'ao <i)
of a o a) o Q 2 a)'- u) U E `o U w
P.r� d HUdmQaouO) a. Ho. - c-i ri - ui
0
•-
-+4 o c >
f6 -a) 0 O0 a L O C
CU wd m 0 E 'c
C0O C
o c) c a) c O v a •a a) >c < o a m O co_) c
O E N Oa i C - u) co L tan 0 O`n- •a O C O o . 'O
E O C C) 0 O .o .c .>. (a 0 m a C0 C O m Y6 a)
.�� .. 0)aa)) cmc J 0- "a a) O F- ca) o cE E oui coo- iii a) a)
0 L c - m a) -0
ce.� i d C -8.� a)a) cesrna 0 0 E mU.?o ,a5_) o° a) o oEamacoLL o ,a
m m
U C w c CO uI CC 0 c=_ a :c m a) a) C 0 a
C C a)a o m ci S'_m a) o a • 0 3 a) m m o ao o a) �m 0E,.8, c m
, . a O Fv m r Q o U 0) c w .� c c O L c E 0 o a
N 0m � O0 .. i `o cQ c d iocca mom umi'> EH cn3omO c
0 = o c u) �Oo0 , a o 8 •�Eo o2 2 Nus a om N-8Qscu) co 0
- d ata) -0c U O ca.. -c a) ca 3 > c000 c .3
'o d) .- .ca Pe- OEc a) ""tv ..C. CL
O ' mo) u' 0.Na) cn..= u)
s_ t --(0-. ..t.,-
m u) -�u).-T--- °° 0-0a.a - >= G E 0 a c?Qt 8 m- n.W E `�
',. O. O Qa a) Uascoa) o .2 -0o ° moms E m, oc oLwo E ua),
` O Q. C a O c N a) c O co O 0. .L C U N o U L...L .5 O .� O C O - a)O 00 L
y. E 0 O V.O. O C4 m m C i
0 . c° E0 = rn, c 0 iooc C 0U0 aEO a)
.tet=' to 0 0UCEa) cma 0 Co..O O CO) mmm v mEZo � a�N
.—P.' O X :T-„„--•5 �)o >•L" u)i m > O a o = u)•o 2 um) c ac) a`) u) Z u3) s o U L > m E
' C ~ . ooa)) 3a`) Cap0) a`) 4-. '' m_ EC =acn of a 0m a) cnma) - c
'4"s ) C °L w io CE0.c w d U o2E5aa DODm w20oo a m n
L.,,,_,‘� O E' L,-8 O.O.cw .� E > Ocn a)� a) 0 >. cc.Oc (aa) 8 w �
p ` 7, m'� oE•wo3'a� ax) c N (n ooa)� >ovomoaEio3 Eo@' 2 `" mc-��
/�� 'as ca m1` EEoEm > a) 0 - . .cmcm .0 a`> a"-' a.c '-oLca LOCO
LL�i" 0 u)L 2 L L O m F �� E o c a >, rn a u) a.) x 0 c O c°t
++ e, m- 0 o 00n as o~ a.�F-U c v �,U o'0 3CD u mQ cn r o -. TA UI- cn
poxsItmorC C E C1 a0>) Q<, C N 0 0 o QO-O ; v
Q- W > �a o O W o V S CO a< U..O
- C
W -� CVC,'; 1- CV .
a
t 3 �
0
y
k,,,,........
� a
Chamber&
Visitors Bun au
Shakopee — Minnesota
A Policy Paper on Transportation Taxes in Scott County
I. Introduction
The Shakopee Chamber and Visitor's Bureau("Chamber")submits this policy paper to advocate
for the establishment of a local transportation sales tax under Minn. Stat. §297A.993.
The Chamber is a nonprofit corporation organized to improve the economic environment for
local businesses. The Chamber is comprised of nearly 300 members who employ 9,800 full time
and 5,600 part-tirnelseasonal workers. Members include large corporations, entertainment
attractions and a litany of small and medium sized businesses. The Chamber supports imposition
of a .50% sales and use tax under Minn. Stat. § 297A.993 and opposes the County voluntarily
joining CTIB unless or until the present statutory structure is amended to allow Scott County to
have a greater voice on the CTIB J Metropolitan Conned such that it would have representation
and control of tax dollars levied on Scott County citizens under CTIB's mandate.
II. Call to Action
The Chamber's members are generally economically conservative and tax-adverse, holding the
belief that each dollar spent on taxes is one dollar less to invest in expansion of their business or
in profit the owners would otherwise realize. The aserant Scott County Board members have
advocated similar beliefs in their respective campaigns for office. However, cost inevitability
runs deep for transit and highway funding. The costs to improve roadways, to maintain them, to
establish greater transit projects and alternative transit means, and make our overall transit
system safer, are inescapable as our county continues to grow in population and commercial
development. Whether Scott County acts today to take charge of this issue, or waits and uses
other taxes to pay for the same inevitable projects, or worse, waits until the State of Minnesota
imposes a broader tax devoid of local control that would strip tax dollars from our citizens
without reinvesting them here, the dollars will come from Scott County's citizens one way or
another. As a result, the Chamber believes Scott County should enact legislation that takes
control of local dollars and spends them locally so as to reap the greatest benefit for our
citizenry.
III. The Present Transportation and Transit Tax System Leaves Scott County at a
Disadvantage when Compared to Munitinalitka Wim the 4 694 Corridor
Minnesota's transit planning and control entities are nous, politically complex, and
somewhat disjointed in terms of an overarching transit plan and strategy. As a result, it is
important for the Scott County Board to appreciate how these various entities are governed and
that they have overlapping powers with des contradictory planning objectives.
1801 East couniv lio<.(l I01 • Stutlal)ro, MN 55311 • w w.shalopee.org
1'honi. 952 1 1 100 ) • i. o,.. fly1.'-145-i0 9 • '1'o11-Free: 1-800-571-2150
IV. figkg MaAbgragaziaraiktgatiasiustraing
• A relatively new statutory allowance in Minn. Stat. § 297A.993 provides that non-CT1I3
counties can levy up to a .50% sales tax and $20 motor vehicle excise tax for transit and
transportation funding. Scott County has a number of transportation projects that could benefit
from an additional funding source. For example, numerous pavement improvement and
maintenance projects throughout the county, and various intersection reconstruction and safety
improvements. The use of the sales tax funds raised under a county sales tax will for the most
part be at the discretion of our local County Board.As a result,we expect our county board will
spend those tax dollars in Scott County, in great contrast to the Met Council and CTIB which
spend the lions share(if not all)of its funds in the greater Minneapolis and St.Paul area.
V. Collateral Benefits
Authorizing this tax now could likely enhance our future negotiating position with the Met
Council. If Scott County creates its own tax, and spends those dollars locally, CTIB will not be
collecting money in Scott County. If MB / the State wanted to broaden CTIB's tax base, it
could do so by adding Scott County to CTIB,but the County should resist joining CTIB until it
is given voting rights.
Additionally, Governor Dayton's has indicated a proposal to expand the .25% CT1B tax to
become a .75%tax on the 5-County Metro Area, and a.50%tax on Scott and Carver.; Much of
the dollars recovered in this wady would be spent on the State of Minnesota's share of the
Southwest Light Rail expansion. Acting out ahead of a decision on a forced CTIB expansion
may create political pressure against such an expansion at the state legislature.
VI.
Transit planning and control in the Twin Cities metro area involves a mix of agencies, elected
and appointed officials, and overlapping authority causing confusion and politicking amongst
those entities. The Scott County Board can avoid the present unfortunate political climate
surrounding transit and transportation tax planning and governance by enacting a local tax,
controlled locally, where-the money is spent locally. The Chamber believes-the•Scott County
Board should enact legislation enabled by Minn. Stat. § 297A.993 and take control of local
dollars and spends them locally so as to reap the greatest benefit for our citizenry Absent local
control, our local businesses are beholden to the interests concentrated in the 694/494 corridor,
which often are not aligned with our own. Local businesses need well maintained local roads,
bridges,and intersection to allow their customers to get to the business,and to allow the business
to bring its goods to market. Absent local control, the only guarantee is that tax dollars will be
assessed at a state level and spent elsewhere leaving Scott County's citizens paying for roadways
in other parts of the state and here at lie. While generally our businesses are opposed to
paying more taxes, this is a tax we can get behind because it serves our collective interest and is
the best solution to an imminent need.
jjjj3jjjjj
/
The Metropolitan Council ("Met Council") is a creature of statute with 17 members.' It governs
Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties. State law divides
this area into 16 regions, each having roughly equal populations, and each such region having a
representative on the Met Council. The 176 member of the Met Council is an at large member.
Because population density is highest near the city centers of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the
majority of voting power lies with members representing regions in those cities. As a result of
self-interest of its members, the Met Council tends to favor transit projects closest to the Twin
Cities. All of the member representatives on the Met Council are appointed by the Governor with
terms that coincide with the Governor's term.
The Met Council has the power to control funding for projects, but because its member-
representatives are not elected, they are not accountable to the electorate for their funding
decisions. For this reason the Office of the Legislative Auditor has advised the State of
Minnesota to abolish the existing transit governance system and move toward a system with
greater accountability including elected representatives.2 If elected officials represented the
majority of seats on the Met Council, another entity called the Transportation Advisory Board
("TAB") would be unnecessary as the revamped Met Council would meet federal funding
control requirements. The Met Council also has credibility concerns because it is both the transit
planning organization for the metro area, as well as the major provider of transit services through
Metro Transit(light rail, bus, commuter rail). This has possibly led to disproportionate funding
of certain transit projects of interest to Metro Transit.
The Counties Transit Improvement Board ("CTIB") is another transit planning authority, and is
created by state statute t;flti serves a somewhat overlapping planning function with that of the
Met Council and TAB. Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington counties all have
voting power on the CTIB. The Chair of the Met Council is also a voting member. on CTIB.
Carver and Scott Counties don't have voting power on CTIB, but could be members by choice
by signing onto the CTIB joint powers agreement, or could become forced CTIB members by a
change in state law.
By enabling legislation, the CTIB can levy a .25% sales tax and a$20 per motor vehicle excise
tax,which tax dollars are controlled by CTIB's Board. CTIB's tax dollars are statutorily limited
to funding transit projects, which are substantially more limited in scope than the more general
-transportation funding needed for many projects important to Scott County, including pavement •
improvements and management, general road construction for expansion, and safety
improvements. CTIB can decide which transit ways to fund, but its decision must be consistent
with the Met Council's Transportation Policy Plan. This is problematic because often the CTIB
and Met Council disagree on funding priorities.
{Min.Stat.¢473.121,et seq.
http://www.auditorieg.atate.mmusipadipedrap/transit.pdf
04 PRIp+P
ti
U
1
4646 Dakota Street SE
'yrwrrsso"s° Prior Lake.MN 55372
May 11, 2015
Scott County Board of Commissioners
200 Fourth Avenue West
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Transportation Sales Tax Implementation Plan Proposal
Chair and Commissioners,
The Scott County 2030 Comprehensive Transportation Plan has identified future needs and
deficiencies on the Scott County Transportation system. Additional investment in the inter-
regional corridors and principal arterials within Scott County is necessary for improved
connectivity and capacity on the current and future principal arterial system, as well as
improved intersection operations and safety on County highway and State trunk highway
intersections. These improvements are necessary to the economic vitality of Scott County and
quality of life for its residents.
Furthermore, minimal investments on important corridors and the transit system in Scott
County have been identified in the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan and the
MnDOT State Highway Investment Plan. As a result, greater burden is placed on local levels
of government to fund necessary transportation improvements. Funding sources available to
cities are extremely limited. Property tax, Municipal State Aid, development fees, and
occasionally grants, make up the bulk of the current sources.
In contrast to the impact of a property tax levy, the sales tax option shares the tax burden with
non-residents reducing the impact to Scott County taxpayers. Therefore, the Prior Lake City
Council supports the Transportation Sales Tax Implementation Plan Proposal.
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Prior Lake,
/(;),17fifirk7-141.-5
Kenneth L. Hedberg
Mayor
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245/www.cityofpriorlake.com