Agenda - Council - 01/12/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'1 i I I I I I I I I I because, unlike similar laws in other states, it preserved the common law liability of a good samaritan for damages resulting from ordinary negligence in rendering emergency care. The League recommends that the law be amended to limit the liability of a person rendering emergency care at the scene of an emergency to liability for willful or wanton misconduct. V-14. Work Restitution Program (C) The League urges the various court systems, municipal officials, and the legislature to the ex- tent that it can, to encourage and make possible community work restitution programs. This may require making available funding methods through grants or special levies. V-15. Youth Service Bureaus (B) A youth service bureau attempts, through coun- selling, to avert establishment of a pattern of youth lawbreaking. Youth are referred by police, school and court. By utilizing the youth service bureau, a youth and his family are helped to find and correct the cause of a behavior problem. The League recommends that the legislature en- courage local governments to sponsor youth service bureau type activities as a help and buffer to the court system and a preventive for habitual youth offense by providing local units the ability to fund these programs through the local property tax levy by use of a special levy. V-16. Control of Narcotics Paraphernalia (A) The League supports the development of state- wide legislation prohibiting the sale of narcotics paraphernalia in Minnesota and enabling legisla- tion granting local enforcement of such legisla- tion. VI. REVENUE SOURCES VI-1. General Revenue Sharing (A) The federal general revenue sharing program provides vitally needed funds to cities in Minnesota. Continuation of this program is essential for tis- cai stability of our communities. In considering legislation to re-enact the pro- gram, the Administration and the Congress should take account of the fact that although inflation has continued to expand the demands upon hard- pressed local budgets, revenue sharing funds have received no significant increase since the inception of the program. Re-enactment of the revenue sharing law should remedy this shortfall by pro- viding sufficient funds to restore the program to its 1972 level and project an appropriate infla- tionary factor for future years of funds. Continued multi-year funding of the program is essential to sound fiscal-planning and manage- ment at the local level and should be a part of the re-enactment legislation. Congress and the Administration should resist the temptation to use revenue sharing as a lever to governmental and other reforms at the local level. Revenue sharing should be a flexible, decen- tralized program free of bureaucratic entangle- ments. The dangerous tendency of the imposition of difficult procedural and other requirements is apparent in the revenue sharing amendments of 1976. Significant questions concerning the continued participation of state government in the revenue sharing program have been raised. An across-the- board answer is not appropriate to this question. State participation might be gauged on a level of fiscal efforts basis. Those states with the highest tax effort should be continued at full funding, while those with only minimal effort might be considered for a change in status. VI-2. Resolution on Revenue Sharing Priority (A) The League understands that the federal govern- ment is considering budget revisions which will call for cuts in virtually all programs of interest to city governments. The League also recognizes that, at this time, it does not have adequate infor- mation to propose alternative approaches to deal- ing with a program to control the near national emergency problem of inflation. The League is quite clear, however, that the general revenue sharing program is of vital importance to all Min- nesota cities. Upon the average, these cities utilize general revenue sharing to account for approxi- mately 10% of their budgets. Since, in most in- stances, these funds are a part of the city's oper- ating budget, reductions in general revenue sharing will leave cities no choice but to raise taxes or reduce city services and personnel. Neither alter- native is an acceptable method of dealing with inflation. General revenue sharing has actually - 25 -