Edina City Council 2024 State Legislative Platform
Share Edina City Council 2024 State Legislative Platform on FacebookShare Edina City Council 2024 State Legislative Platform on TwitterShare Edina City Council 2024 State Legislative Platform on LinkedinEmail Edina City Council 2024 State Legislative Platform link
The City annually adopts a state legislative platform to allow the City Council and staff to identify changes in state law that may better achieve goals of the City and the community. These are typically funding requests and policy changes that the City would like approval for from the state. Changes to state law can take years to occur. If approved at the state level, changes to laws may require review and approval at the local level, which includes public meetings and public hearing. As the City pursues changes at the state level, any following action at the city level would follow all appropriate statute and best practice, including public meetings and public hearings.
On January 2, 2024, City Council will discuss the state legislative platform, with a decision to be made on January 16, 2024. At the December 19th City Council meeting, City Council made changes to the draft legislative platform:
Remove item 2.4 Authorize the City to Impose a Demolition Fee
Remove item 2.5 Authorize the City to Impose a Single Family Transfer Tax
Add any questions and feedback on the draft platform below.
The City annually adopts a state legislative platform to allow the City Council and staff to identify changes in state law that may better achieve goals of the City and the community. These are typically funding requests and policy changes that the City would like approval for from the state. Changes to state law can take years to occur. If approved at the state level, changes to laws may require review and approval at the local level, which includes public meetings and public hearing. As the City pursues changes at the state level, any following action at the city level would follow all appropriate statute and best practice, including public meetings and public hearings.
On January 2, 2024, City Council will discuss the state legislative platform, with a decision to be made on January 16, 2024. At the December 19th City Council meeting, City Council made changes to the draft legislative platform:
Remove item 2.4 Authorize the City to Impose a Demolition Fee
Remove item 2.5 Authorize the City to Impose a Single Family Transfer Tax
The City of Edina offers several ways for people to provide public input. Regardless of the method, all input is considered, so people need to use only one method.
Instructions for leaving a public comment below:
Your comment will be available to City Council, staff and others to review immediately instead of waiting until the public meeting.
Your comment will be posted and publicly viewable as soon as you hit 'Submit'.
You will not be able to edit or remove your comment.
Please introduce yourself, your neighborhood and your thoughts about this project.
City Council will make a decision at the City Council meeting on January 16.
If you have any difficulties with participating, contact Community Engagement Manager, MJ Lamon at MLamon@EdinaMN.gov or 952-826-0360.
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Thank you for removing the proposed property transfer tax and demolition fee from the legislative agenda. But PLEASE let’s be done with it for good. Like Councilmember Jackson, many residents were also dumbfounded—the quintessential word to describe an administrative blunder by city officials and staff. And thanks, also, to the eagle-eye and alert resident who FOUND the potential DUMB idea of yet another tax, this time targeting single-family homeowners. The fact that the infuriatingly dumb idea was even uttered let alone was almost slipped through a council agenda as part of a bigger document leaves residents beyond dumbfounded, but adds to the growing fissure and lack of trust between residents and city officials.
My hope is this is last we will hear of this beyond dumb idea to tax single family homeowners to fund the city’s very divisive affordable housing agenda—an idea modeled after other cities/states like Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Jersey and Hawaii where single family homeownership is impossible for even the middle class. Is that really where Edina is heading, to make home ownership only possible for the one-percenters?
As for the rest of the legislative agenda, it would seem like a good opportunity to request that our state legislature work with the Metropolitan Airports Commission to require the FAA to have a robust public outreach and engagement plan for the implementation of RNAV estimated to happen this year. The FAA will be condensing the routes over Edina which will lead to increased air traffic and noise pollution. Yet there has been no public release of data collected from other cities such as Charlotte where RNAV has been implemented; the proposed routes have not been published; noise impact analysis has not been studied or if it has, not released; and information from our city to residents has not been a priority.
Constance
over 1 year ago
I oppose the institution of a 0.05% "property transfer tax" to be collected for the sale of homes valued at over $500,000. There has been. o opportunity for public input and this tax targets a single slice of the population, those with homes valued over $500k to establish a fund lacking clear, articulated guidelines. If the city is seeking support for affordable housing, the city should make a direct request for contributions. This seems to be a roundabout way to raise funds for this cause and I oppose having it included without providing the public ample time and opportunity to provide input.
Yedda
over 1 year ago
My name is Ilona Kerin. I would just like to voice my opinion. Being a homeowner in Edina for over 40 years. The meeting you are having I will not be able to attend. I am opposed to giving a percentage of the sale of my home for the homeless. We have worked our whole lives to support our home and I don’t think it’s fair that a few people should have a meeting and decide they’re going to take a percentage of the sale of my home for the homeless. I live by Gleason Terrace. Thank you very much. I hope this does not happen. I know so many people are concerned too about having to pay for organics pickup when so many aren’t even doing it. You’re making us pay for that just isn’t fair. (Voicemail received January 10, 2024 10:24 AM. Transcribed by City Staff)
Liz Olson
over 1 year ago
Mmccauley567 said it best and I agree with his (or her) statement: PLEASE don't add this tax!!! We have enough taxes!! The City does not need to add to the expense of home ownership by imposing a deed transfer tax or demolition fee. We are paying an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund affordable housing, as well as state, county, and regional taxes. The city should seek funding from existing sources and not increase the burden of living in Edina. Stick with traditional municipal services.
kingjohn
over 1 year ago
The City does not need to add to the expense of home ownership by imposing a deed transfer tax or demolition fee. We are paying an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund affordable housing, as well as state, county, and regional taxes. The city should seek funding from existing sources and not increase the burden of living in Edina. Stick with traditional municipal services.
Mmccauley567
over 1 year ago
The proposed change to group home regulation is highly discriminatory when requesting that group homes be 1320 feet apart, a quarter mile or 26 to 13 single family lots apart. Part of the concept of groups homes is to integrate the disabled into the greater community and therefore avoid bunching up homes in one cul-de- sac or block. A shorter distance between homes of maybe 500 feet would allow for more homes while disbursing houses throughout the community. Some parts of Edina are within walking distance of commercial and recreational areas and should allow more density. A quarter mile separation would create problems especially for group homes that have ambulatory residents. This proposal as it stands goes against the publicly stated Edina ideals of being inclusive, diverse and welcoming. We do not want to think that some neighbors object to those with physical, developmental or other apparent disabilities in their neighborhood. Group homes within a short distance of extended family allows for disable residents to be in easy contact with relatives. We need to be more inclusive and flexible in our zoning. As for a concern regarding parking, a few cars on the street indicates there are people around and as noted by the city's engineer parked cars will cause other drivers to slow down. See the city's suggest language below.
1.3 Change Group Home Regulation Licensed residential facilities do not have any distance separation requirements in single-family residential use zones in Edina. Minn. Stat. 245A.11 has distance requirements of 1,320 feet between licensed residential STAFF REPORT Page 6 facilities, but these requirements do not apply to Edina. The City supports licensed residential facility use in the City and urges this distance separation because: • Grouping facilities on the same block in a single-family residential neighborhood is detrimental to the neighborhood and the individuals in the facilities. • Individuals no longer reap the benefit of enjoying a normal residential setting with a diversity of households. When entire blocks are acquired for licensed residential facilities, the setting is more similar to a large institutional campus. • Neighborhoods experience an increase in traffic, parking needs, deliveries, and other activities compounded by numerous facilities on the same block. • Grouping facilities effectively turns a residential area into a commercial area
Grimesguy
over 1 year ago
1. Strongly object to raising the purchasing ceiling of the City Manager. No clear evidence of his prudent use of current purchasing authority. 2. Strongly object to recommendation of allocation of lodging taxes to other purposes. No evidence that the taxes are curently being put to good use for the benefit of the community. Explore Edina financnes are opaque. The Chamber of Commerce already receives large amounts of money that mostly appear to be dedicated to ''insider'' events that circumvent Open Meeting laws and provide elaborate entertainment for elected officials and a handful of City emplkoyees.
PrairieGirl55
over 1 year ago
I completely disagree with the taxes proposed under 2.4 & 2.5 they fall most harshly on the middle class and seniors
Kingdown
over 1 year ago
Numerous concerns regarding a targeted tax such as this. Will it include all homes within the Edina boarder including those in other school districts? Will the council be willing to revise the tax to only be taxed on homes that acquire a net proceeds above 500k.
Thank you for removing the proposed property transfer tax and demolition fee from the legislative agenda. But PLEASE let’s be done with it for good. Like Councilmember Jackson, many residents were also dumbfounded—the quintessential word to describe an administrative blunder by city officials and staff. And thanks, also, to the eagle-eye and alert resident who FOUND the potential DUMB idea of yet another tax, this time targeting single-family homeowners. The fact that the infuriatingly dumb idea was even uttered let alone was almost slipped through a council agenda as part of a bigger document leaves residents beyond dumbfounded, but adds to the growing fissure and lack of trust between residents and city officials.
My hope is this is last we will hear of this beyond dumb idea to tax single family homeowners to fund the city’s very divisive affordable housing agenda—an idea modeled after other cities/states like Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Jersey and Hawaii where single family homeownership is impossible for even the middle class. Is that really where Edina is heading, to make home ownership only possible for the one-percenters?
As for the rest of the legislative agenda, it would seem like a good opportunity to request that our state legislature work with the Metropolitan Airports Commission to require the FAA to have a robust public outreach and engagement plan for the implementation of RNAV estimated to happen this year. The FAA will be condensing the routes over Edina which will lead to increased air traffic and noise pollution. Yet there has been no public release of data collected from other cities such as Charlotte where RNAV has been implemented; the proposed routes have not been published; noise impact analysis has not been studied or if it has, not released; and information from our city to residents has not been a priority.
I oppose the institution of a 0.05% "property transfer tax" to be collected for the sale of homes valued at over $500,000. There has been. o opportunity for public input and this tax targets a single slice of the population, those with homes valued over $500k to establish a fund lacking clear, articulated guidelines. If the city is seeking support for affordable housing, the city should make a direct request for contributions. This seems to be a roundabout way to raise funds for this cause and I oppose having it included without providing the public ample time and opportunity to provide input.
My name is Ilona Kerin. I would just like to voice my opinion. Being a homeowner in Edina for over 40 years. The meeting you are having I will not be able to attend. I am opposed to giving a percentage of the sale of my home for the homeless. We have worked our whole lives to support our home and I don’t think it’s fair that a few people should have a meeting and decide they’re going to take a percentage of the sale of my home for the homeless. I live by Gleason Terrace. Thank you very much. I hope this does not happen. I know so many people are concerned too about having to pay for organics pickup when so many aren’t even doing it. You’re making us pay for that just isn’t fair. (Voicemail received January 10, 2024 10:24 AM. Transcribed by City Staff)
Mmccauley567 said it best and I agree with his (or her) statement: PLEASE don't add this tax!!! We have enough taxes!!
The City does not need to add to the expense of home ownership by imposing a deed transfer tax or demolition fee. We are paying an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund affordable housing, as well as state, county, and regional taxes. The city should seek funding from existing sources and not increase the burden of living in Edina. Stick with traditional municipal services.
The City does not need to add to the expense of home ownership by imposing a deed transfer tax or demolition fee. We are paying an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund affordable housing, as well as state, county, and regional taxes. The city should seek funding from existing sources and not increase the burden of living in Edina. Stick with traditional municipal services.
The proposed change to group home regulation is highly discriminatory when requesting that group homes be 1320 feet apart, a quarter mile or 26 to 13 single family lots apart. Part of the concept of groups homes is to integrate the disabled into the greater community and therefore avoid bunching up homes in one cul-de- sac or block. A shorter distance between homes of maybe 500 feet would allow for more homes while disbursing houses throughout the community. Some parts of Edina are within walking distance of commercial and recreational areas and should allow more density. A quarter mile separation would create problems especially for group homes that have ambulatory residents. This proposal as it stands goes against the publicly stated Edina ideals of being inclusive, diverse and welcoming. We do not want to think that some neighbors object to those with physical, developmental or other apparent disabilities in their neighborhood. Group homes within a short distance of extended family allows for disable residents to be in easy contact with relatives. We need to be more inclusive and flexible in our zoning. As for a concern regarding parking, a few cars on the street indicates there are people around and as noted by the city's engineer parked cars will cause other drivers to slow down. See the city's suggest language below.
1.3 Change Group Home Regulation
Licensed residential facilities do not have any distance separation requirements in single-family residential
use zones in Edina. Minn. Stat. 245A.11 has distance requirements of 1,320 feet between licensed residential
STAFF REPORT Page 6
facilities, but these requirements do not apply to Edina. The City supports licensed residential facility use in
the City and urges this distance separation because:
• Grouping facilities on the same block in a single-family residential neighborhood is detrimental to the
neighborhood and the individuals in the facilities.
• Individuals no longer reap the benefit of enjoying a normal residential setting with a diversity of
households. When entire blocks are acquired for licensed residential facilities, the setting is more
similar to a large institutional campus.
• Neighborhoods experience an increase in traffic, parking needs, deliveries, and other activities
compounded by numerous facilities on the same block.
• Grouping facilities effectively turns a residential area into a commercial area
1. Strongly object to raising the purchasing ceiling of the City Manager. No clear evidence of his prudent use of current purchasing authority.
2. Strongly object to recommendation of allocation of lodging taxes to other purposes. No evidence that the taxes are curently being put to good use for the benefit of the community. Explore Edina financnes are opaque. The Chamber of Commerce already receives large amounts of money that mostly appear to be dedicated to ''insider'' events that circumvent Open Meeting laws and provide elaborate entertainment for elected officials and a handful of City emplkoyees.
I completely disagree with the taxes proposed under 2.4 & 2.5 they fall most harshly on the middle class and seniors
Numerous concerns regarding a targeted tax such as this.
Will it include all homes within the Edina boarder including those in other school districts?
Will the council be willing to revise the tax to only be taxed on homes that acquire a net proceeds above 500k.
Removed by moderator.