Laserfiche WebLink
permitting bodies have not established <br />an independent approval timeline; <br />b) Clarify that approval does not <br />abrogate the need for approvals under <br />other applicable federal, state or local <br />requirements; <br />c) Provide appeal rights to adjacent <br />property owners; <br />d) Clarify that, if requests are to be <br />decided by a board, commission or <br />other agent of a governmental agency, <br />and the decision of the board, <br />commission or other agent is adopted <br />subject to appeal to the governing <br />body of the agency, then the agency <br />may extend the 60 -day time limit to <br />resolve the appeal; and <br />e) More clearly define that the phrase <br />"related to zoning" refers to a <br />traditional land use decision such as <br />rezoning, conditional use permits, and <br />variances. <br />LE -7. Public Infrastructure Utilities <br />Issue: Successful economic development <br />efforts and community stability are <br />dependent upon a city's ability to make <br />infrastructure investments. Current <br />infrastructure funding options available to <br />cities are inadequate and unsustainable. <br />Funding pressures have been exacerbated by <br />levy limits, unallotment and reductions in <br />the local government aid and market value <br />homestead credit programs. The existing <br />special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, <br />does not meet cities' financing needs <br />because of the benefit requirement. The law <br />requires a minimum of 20 percent of such a <br />project to be specially assessed against <br />affected properties. In practice, however, <br />proof of increased property value to this <br />degree of benefit can rarely be proven from <br />regular repair or replacement of existing <br />infrastructure such as streets or sidewalks. <br />Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429 <br />methods for financing infrastructure <br />improvements are nearly nonexistent. <br />The Legislature has given cities the <br />authority to operate utilities for waterworks, <br />sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The <br />storm sewer authority, established in 1983, <br />set the precedent for a workable process of <br />charging a use fee on a utility bill for a city <br />service infrastructure that is of value to <br />everyone in a city. Similar to the storm <br />sewer authority, a transportation or sidewalk <br />utility would use technical, well-founded <br />measurements and would equitably <br />distribute the costs of local infrastructure <br />services. <br />Response: The Legislature should <br />authorize cities to create, as a local <br />option, additional utilities such as a <br />transportation or sidewalk utility. Such <br />authority would acknowledge the effects <br />of repeated levy limits and the general <br />funding shift from the state to local <br />governments for building and <br />maintaining necessary infrastructure; the <br />benefits to all taxpayers of a properly <br />maintained public infrastructure; and, <br />the limitations of existing special <br />assessment authority. <br />LE -8. Maintenance of Retaining <br />Walls Adjacent to Public Rights of <br />Way <br />Issue: The Minnesota Constitution grants <br />cities the power to "levy and collect <br />assessments for local improvements upon <br />property benefited hereby." Retaining walls <br />are one of the many improvements that a <br />city is authorized to make on behalf of its <br />citizens, and Minnesota's special assessment <br />law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, authorizes cities to <br />charge special assessments on properties <br />that are benefitted by an improvement. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 49 <br />