Laserfiche WebLink
Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities urges the Legislature and governor <br />to establish a procedure in state law to <br />continue certain state government <br />operations into a new biennium in the <br />event that the governor and legislators <br />cannot reach a budget agreement. <br />Specifically, the Legislature and governor <br />should modify state law to assure that the <br />staff necessary to distribute state funds <br />that are already encumbered or <br />statutorily appropriated to local <br />governments are distributed as statutorily <br />scheduled, or in the absence of a statutory <br />payment schedule, are released in a <br />predictable and timely manner in the <br />event of future shutdowns. <br />The Legislature should also pass <br />legislation that allows existing licenses of <br />public employees to be continued during <br />any future state government shutdown <br />and should identify additional areas, such <br />as electrical and plumbing inspection and <br />plumbing plan review, where local <br />governments could reasonably step in to <br />handle the inspections, review, and <br />approval necessary for local projects to <br />move forward, and allows work on <br />approved projects to continue in state <br />rights -of -way. <br />SD-5. City Costs for Enforcing <br />State and Local Laws <br />Issue: Cities experience substantial costs <br />enforcing state and local laws, particularly <br />those related to traffic, controlled <br />substances, and incarceration of prisoners. <br />The current method in our criminal justice <br />system of recovering costs for law <br />enforcement and prosecution through fines <br />is insufficient to meet the costs incurred by <br />local governments. Further, when a violator <br />requests relief from paying the full amount <br />of the fine and surcharge, the courts have <br />been more inclined to waive the fine than to <br />reduce the surcharge. When this occurs, the <br />local units of government recover no costs <br />even though the city has incurred expenses. <br />Response: The Legislature should review <br />this issue and adopt measures that <br />provide for complete reimbursement of <br />the costs incurred by local governments in <br />enforcing state and local laws. For <br />example, the Legislature should closely <br />monitor whether local units of <br />government incur additional enforcement <br />and/or prosecution costs as a result of the <br />recently reduced driving while intoxicated <br />(DWI) threshold. The state should <br />provide the necessary funding to <br />compensate local units of government for <br />related cost increases. Solutions that <br />should be considered include: <br />a) Increasing fine amounts. <br />b) Removing or modifying county and <br />state surcharges that conflict with cost <br />recovery principles. <br />c) Requiring the courts to consider <br />ordering restitution from the <br />defendant to reimburse the costs of <br />enforcement and prosecution as part <br />of any sentence. <br />d) Requiring that if a court reduces the <br />amount paid by a violator, any <br />reduction should be made from the <br />surcharge and not the fine. <br />SD-6. Duration of Conservation <br />Easements <br />Issue: The Minnesota Marketable Title Act <br />provides that any deed over 40 years old can <br />be disregarded unless the holder of the <br />interest re-records it. There is an exception <br />for a person in possession of the property. A <br />2010 Minnesota Supreme Court decision <br />said that the person in possession has to <br />show that the possession has been visible <br />enough to put a prudent person on notice of <br />the interest, and that the possession has to be <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 3 <br />