Laserfiche WebLink
Minn. Stat. § 617.292, subd. 3, on <br />party buses and boats -for -hire; <br />c) Explicit authority for peace officers to <br />investigate suspicious activities on <br />party buses and boats -for -hire and to <br />cite individuals on board who are <br />involved in illegal activities; and <br />d) Requiring the appropriate authority <br />to utilize existing authority to impose <br />fines, or to deny, suspend, or revoke <br />permits or registration certificates <br />held by operators found to have adult <br />entertainment, drug, or underage <br />consumption violations. <br />SD-62. Environmental Protection <br />Issue: Cities demonstrate strong stewardship <br />for the protection and preservation of the <br />environment. Minnesota municipalities have <br />historically been the leading funding source <br />for environmental protection and <br />improvements. Municipal efforts include <br />environmental protection through <br />wastewater treatment, wetland restorations, <br />stormwater treatment, public utility emission <br />reductions, brownfield cleanup, safe <br />drinking water programs, as well as others. <br />At some point, however, the diminishing or <br />nonexistent environmental benefit received <br />from additional efforts is fiscally <br />irresponsible. The programs are often <br />improperly designed to meet their stated <br />goals. Additionally, the absence of funding <br />by the state and federal government has <br />removed an essential restraining feature in <br />program design and implementation. <br />Agencies are less accountable to the <br />governments that mandate environmental <br />programs when they do not have to find the <br />money to implement the programs. <br />Specific problems faced by cities include: <br />a) New programs or standards are <br />continually adopted without regard to <br />the existence, attainability or cost of <br />existing programs and standards. <br />b) Regulatory bodies fail to consistently <br />use the best science available and the <br />most current and accurate data when <br />establishing water quality standards. <br />c) Regulatory bodies impose new permit <br />requirements without going through <br />rulemaking. Instead, the agencies rely on <br />internal documents, program strategies, <br />and "best professional judgment of staff' <br />when setting permit criteria. <br />d) Regulatory bodies approve permits and <br />programs that compete with traditional <br />municipal services and encourage urban <br />sprawl. This behavior puts at risk the <br />public investments and growth <br />management efforts cities have made <br />when planning for future development. <br />e) Permit fees and other cost -transfer <br />elements of federal and state programs <br />do not provide an incentive for <br />environmental agency efficiency, policy <br />prioritization or risk assessment. <br />Additionally, all residents of the state <br />contribute to the need for wastewater, <br />drinking water, and stormwater <br />treatment and benefit from the resulting <br />improved water quality. These factors <br />make the state general fund an <br />appropriate source for significant <br />portions of state water program funding. <br />f) Third -party environmental advocacy <br />groups create significant hardships on <br />cities by threatening litigation even <br />when the best science available may not <br />support the groups' positions. <br />Cities are often required to pay the cost <br />of removing problem materials from the <br />waste stream, rather than preventing the <br />problem at the consumer product or <br />manufacturing level. <br />g) <br />Response: Alternative wastewater <br />treatment and cooperative service systems <br />should be prohibited from operating in <br />areas that can reasonably and effectively <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 39 <br />