Cities would need more public input on development plans

Cities may use a moratorium on development of up to a year to study changes to or adopt a comprehensive plan, or exert other local controls, such as zoning.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Nash (R-Waconia) and approved as amended 12-6 by the House Government Operations and Elections Policy Committee, would require public input as part of the planning process.

Under HF330, a municipality seeking to impose a moratorium on housing-related development would have to hold a public hearing with a public notice published at least 10 days in advance.

Such a moratorium, also known as an interim ordinance, would also require a two-thirds supermajority vote of the local governing body.

Rep. Jim Nash

The bill now moves to the House Floor. Its companion, SF201, sponsored by Sen. Dan Hall (R-Burnsville), awaits action by the Senate Local Government Committee.

A similar bill was passed 82-47 by the House last May, but stalled in the Senate.

The committee debate mirrored last year’s floor debate.

Rep. Mike Freiberg (DFL-Golden Valley) unsuccessfully proposed an amendment that would have removed the two-thirds vote requirement. It failed on an 11-7 party-line, roll-call vote.

Last year, the House approved a sponsor’s amendment along the same lines.

Freiberg touched on another argument he made last May that 10 days’ notice prevents cities from responding “quickly and nimbly” to an adverse development project.

Nash said public notice and a public hearing was a matter of transparency and fairness to developers, builders, property owners and building trades workers whose interests require a reliable local governance process and venue for grievances.

A second unsuccessfully offered Freiberg amendment would have prevented a proposed development from receiving automatic approval if Minnesota’s so-called “60-day Rule” on government action were to pass during the 10-day notice period before a city hearing on a proposed interim moratorium.