Laserfiche WebLink
g) <br />Maintain the courts as the primary <br />forum for resolving disputes over the <br />exercise of such authority; and <br />h) Maintain existing local authority to <br />review and approve or deny plans for <br />installation or relocation of additional <br />wires or cables on in -place utility <br />poles. In the alternative, cities should <br />have broader authority to require the <br />underground placement of new and/or <br />existing services at the cost of the <br />utility or telecommunications <br />provider. <br />LE-19. Wireless Tower and <br />Antenna Siting <br />Issue: Demand for wireless communication <br />service has increased requests by private and <br />public sector providers to site additional <br />towers, antennas, and other facilities in <br />cities. Local zoning authority and police <br />power to manage and coordinate the siting <br />of these facilities continue to be necessary <br />and appropriate to the exercise of local land <br />use management and police powers. Local <br />management needs vary and are site <br />specific, underscoring the necessity for the <br />exercise of such local authority. <br />While state law regarding local rights -of - <br />way management (Minn. Stat. § 237.162- <br />.163) does not apply to siting such wireless <br />facilities in public rights -of -way, the Federal <br />Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves <br />and provides for the exercise of state and <br />local authority over zoning and land -use <br />decisions for wireless service facilities. <br />Response: Cities must continue to exercise <br />full authority to consider public health, <br />safety, and welfare concerns, including <br />issues of aesthetic and property value in <br />responding to siting and related requests <br />to site, upgrade or alter such wireless <br />facilities. The Legislature should maintain <br />laws that recognize and uphold city <br />authority to manage the siting of wireless <br />facilities through local zoning and <br />regulation and provider agreements, <br />including compensation. <br />LE-20. Economic Development <br />Authorities <br />Issue: The 2005 Legislature authorized all <br />counties outside the metropolitan area to <br />establish county economic development <br />authorities (EDAs). Minn. Stat. § 469.1082 <br />provides specificity on certain process and <br />limitations issues. County EDA activity in <br />areas surrounding cities will directly impact <br />the adjacent city in terms of service <br />provision and taxes. <br />Under Minn. Stat. § 469.107 and § 469.033, <br />EDA levies for economic development <br />activities are capped. These limits can <br />hinder the planning of future development. <br />Response: The Legislature should require <br />city approval for proposed county EDA <br />activities within two miles of a city. The <br />Legislature should consider increasing <br />the levying authority for EDA, Housing <br />and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), <br />and port authority activities in Minn. <br />Stat. ch. 469. <br />LE-21. Local Appropriations to <br />Economic Development <br />Organizations <br />Issue: Cities and towns are allowed to <br />appropriate up to $50,000 per year from <br />general fund revenue to an incorporated <br />development society or organization for <br />"promoting, advertising, improving, or <br />developing the economic and agricultural <br />resources" of the city or town. The $50,000 <br />cap has been in place since 1989 and places <br />unnecessary restrictions on a city's ability to <br />work with non-profit development <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 59 <br />