Agenda - Council - 05/27/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PREAMBLE Although the great majority of Minnesotans have chosen to live in cities, there is a wide di- versity in the size and the range of services pro- vided by the cities themselves. While a number of cities are major population centers, more than 60 per cent have less than 1,000 population. Furthermore, while more than 100 cities have chosen to operate under local home rule charters which permit voters to develop and adopt a govern- mental structure to accommodate local needs, other cities operate under the city code which gives cities structural and operational flexibility within broadly defined limits. Finally, cities as general purpose units of local government have demonstrated their ability to develop and to im- plement policies and services that respond to their own constituencies. There is a wide variation among cities in types of programs and levels of service, and city services are typically those in which local policies are expected to be controll- ing, such as community development, police, fire, street, park and recreation service~, in con- trast to educational and welfare programs where the state's interest is more clearly manifest. Consequently, when new state programs that directly affect cities or city services are considered, the League urges that the following guidelines be used: 1. The state should consider the diversity of cities in services, size and programs. 2. There should be no incursion into the regulatory or licensing power of cities. o Mandated programs should carry a clear identification of compelling statewide in- terest and the cost should be borne by th e state. Laws should maximum the opportunity for the responsible exercise ~f authority at the local level. The League further urges the adoption of the following proposals, which would increase the effectiveness of local government. REVENUE SOURCES General revenue sharing The federal general revenue sharing program provides vitally needed funds to cities in Minne- sota. Continuation of this program is essential for fiscal 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 incep- tion of the program. Re-enactment of the revenue sharing law should remedy this shortfall by provi- ding 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 the revenue sharing program as a lever to governmental and other reforms at the local level. Revenue sharing should be a flexi- ble, decentralized program flee of bureaucratic entanglements. The dangerous tendency of the imposition of difficult procedural and other re- quirements is apparent in the revenue sharing amendments of 1 976. 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. Resolution on revenue sharing priority 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 information to propose alternative approaches to dealing 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 Minnesota cities. Upon the average, these cities utilize general revenue sharing to account for approximately 10% of their -1-