91-2187 OR1GlNAL , Council File �` � �0 �
� 3g
Green Sheet �
RES UTION
CITY OF SAIN UL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To Co t
WHEREAS, the City collects service charges for both taxable and
tax-exempt properties; and
WHEREAB, when property owners challenge service charges, the City
has the burden of proving that the property value increased by the
amount of the service charge through a "market value" analysis; and
WHEREAS, market value analysis is appropriate to measure the
benefit derived by a property ,from a capital improvement, but it
improperly reflects the benefit associated with service charges for
ongoing operation and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities is working to clarify
state law on this issue;
NOW, THEREF03�E, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul
supports 'the League of Minnesota Cities in its efforts to change
Minnesota Statutes, 1990 Chapter 429.101 to expand the definition of
benefit to include properties that are deemed to have received the
service.
Yeas Navs Absent Requeated by Department of:
smon �
osw z �
on �
acca ee
ettman
une �`
By:
Adopted by Council: Date DEC 5 1991 Form Approved by City Attorney
Adoption Ce if' by � urye�il ecretary By:
1 ,
BY' Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Approved by yor: Da F';"`�" Q ���I� Council
gy: �'�,/��i::�r By:
` �� ��� 1 �.'91
. e� °�� �.�zc.
1,��'i�a��7
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N� 18 912 �
city counci� 11/25/91 GREEN SHEET -
CONTACT PEHSON 8 PHONE INITIAUDATE �NITIAUDATE
�DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Lon x4473
g ASSIGN �CITY ATTORNEY �CITY CLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AQENDA BY(DATE) NUMBER FOR �BUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICES DIR.
ROUTING
ORDER Q MAYOR(OR ASSISTAN� �
TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REOUESTED:
Supports the efforts of the League of Minnesota Cities to clarify the
definition of assessable service charges.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Reject(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this person/firm ever worked under e contrect for this department?
_CI8 COMMITTEE _ YES NO
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
_STAFF - YES NO
_DI3TRICT COURT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee7
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL 08JECTIVE7 YES NO
Explain all yes answera on separate sheet and sttach to green shest
INITIATINO PR�LEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why):
Current State definitions of services for which charges may be assessed
leave out many services that cities routinely provide but for which they
are not compensated.
ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED:
The City will be able to be fairly recompensed for the services it
provides.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
None.
DISADVANTAQES IF NOT APPROVED:
The City will continue to provide services to businesses without receiving
payment.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN)
d�v
NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL
MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225).
ROUTING ORDER:
Below are correct routings for the five most frequent types of documents:
CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept.Grants)
1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director
2. Department Director 2. Ciry Attomey
3, City Attorney 3. Budget Director
4. Mayor(for contracts over$15,000) 4. Mayor/Assistant
5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Council
6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services
7. Finance Accounting
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others,and Ordinances)
1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director
2. Department Accountent 2. City Attorney
3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant
4. Budget Director 4. Ciry Council
5. Ciry Cierk
6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others)
1. Department Director
2. City Attorney
3. Finance and Management Services Director
4. City Clerk
TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES
Indicate the#�of pages on which signatures are required and papercllp or ftag
each of thsae peyss.
ACTION REQUESTED
Describe what the proJecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi-
cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the
issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with
a verb.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public
or private.
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE?
Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing
the key woM(s) (HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
BUDCiET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.)
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS:
This information will be used to determine the ciry's liability for workers compensation claims,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules.
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY
Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project
or request.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
Indicate whether this is simpty an annual budget procedure required by law/
charter or whether there are specifiic ways in which the City of Saint Paul
and its citizens will benefit from this projecUaction.
DISADVANTAC�ES IF APPROVED
What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might
this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise,
tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When?For how long?
DISADVANTAC3ES IF NOT APPROVED
What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not
approved? Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise,
accident rate?Loss of revenue?
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you
are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it
gofng to cost?Who is going to pay?
� ����a���
�
SERVICE CHARGE DEFINITION CHANGE
BRIEFING PAPER
Backqround
The City of Saint Paul collects service charges for various ongoing
operation and maintenance activities such as street maintenance and
nuisance abatements. These service charges are collected from both
taxable and tax-exempt properties. When a property owner appeals
the cost of a service charge to the District Court, the City must
prove the property increased in value by the amount of the service
charge through an analysis based on appraised market values of the
property before and after the service was provided.
Issue
This "market value" test is appropriate when applied to capital
improvement assessments; however, the test can lead to absurd
results when applied to ongoing operation and maintenance service
charges.
City staff have been aware of this issue for many years and have
attempted various remedies. 1992 will be the third year we will
propose this legislative change. The importance of this issue is
easily perceived when one looks at the number and types of programs
that are considered service charges and the amounts of money
collected by the City. For instance, the street mztintenance
service charge has been collected for over 100 years and currently
brings in $7 . 5 million annually. The intention of many such
assessments is not to produce revenue, but simply recover costs.
Case law has established the "market value" test as an appropriate
test for capital improvements such as new streets, sewers, etc.
which are levied pursuant to the other sections of Chapter 429 .
Section 429 . 101, by its reference to the term "benefitted
properties" without further explanation, has essentially limited
the defense of service charge appeals to this "market value"
analysis. The League of Minnesota Cities has been working to
correct this problem in the law's language.
Recommendation
The City of Saint Paul supports efforts by the League of Minnesota
Cities to clarify the definition of assessable service charges.
. �'i a��� �
�
G?o. 10! S��' �C� CS�..i�G:.S, • �P�CI�i. P.SS�SS?;�I�i �GAit.ST Ech�:'I:'�D
_RO?�.,_ . . .
S�b�±�•ision . . O:dlr,ances. _n adcScio.^. to aav othe: mechoC
au c::o_!���. bv la1 or cna:cer, the bo��er.,in6 boe;• o� an; cunici�a'_i ty
':dv '�:0�"'_C° i0= ihe CO_�et:�OR Oi L'Tl^yc1G SD?C'-c� C�Z_a°_S �OC G:: O: ci.;
L2=: 7i �RE COS� O�
�cj 5�10�� 1C°� Oi iUb�1SR re^O�'c� i:OC Si4e:Z�kS�
�C\ ;!??C ?�1�:,�:1'c:10.^. i�0.'".. Si:?°_i5 O: P.-� 'oie DCOD°:i� i
.
�rl :oi12�c� O� e:�C`_T.cilOC: O. }^•C:C_'_� !1°_c:.:.^. 0: Sc=ei� itc�c_.^.S
--O�' ^:: 'ci° ,rJ�O'�°:i;r� 2XC�l:G_ilb cii; Si:l:C:l:=° ::1C�U42C L':1G°= �IlE
;ov_s:c::s o� se;tio^s 4e�. 15 io 4c3.2b,
(c) =r.stalla�:o;. o: :epai: o_ :z:e: s�_�'ice lines stre�.
�
��- ::�•: � o= o:�e_ a�st ::eatre^: c_ st:e_:s
-. - - � -�s
�Q� :1° i��R^?Tlb cild Cc�° O� i:oo5 c:1C, i^E i?':Ot•c� O_ l7.^.SOli^..
.:'�°5 =::�- Zi�� Si:°°Lr
� -i i:12 L:°ci�Ti°:li 2RC _ou0'�c� G� i.^.S2Ci _ .:°Si°C C= C�SccS°_L
�_ooc �- p;_ '�;? P�07E:i�� i+^°_ CE?c:: Gi S.C°_'=c_�S nf1C c_!2::5�
/ � � .
\b� �•^•2 00°-�:10.^. Ci �. 5�-?°_ ` �1b^�li b S%5�°..� O'
(:.) :he ope=at:o❑ �c czir,:�r.a:.ce o_ � =::e ?:o:e_.�on o: a
�edes .=_ar. st:, :ay sys:eW,
� �5 :. SD�Gla� cS5ES5�2:ii 2�c�.^.SL �:lp �+�O�JP�lJ� DPAE=1i2C 0�'. O:
- c^ =�e'�•Pd or v�!{ ^h �s ce���^ to �a�e -ece��ed thP se�•:c� ih�
cf�OC�i_O.']^O.^.i O_ C!]°_ 2L101!I'iC5 LO be Cf.2�7°� Si�c�� be d 'E?SOC�cDle
c!!CCcL:O:^. O� :f1? COSLS 0: C^° S2�'�?C° Z.^.C' S:lc�� i10i exceed ii?° ZCLL'c:
^�; ,o o:o�•�ce the se= _c� ihe couac:l c,ay oy orci:ance adep�
-�6L'!��'_O^5•C0.^.S:s ter.: �'1�P �i.15 S2C ilOC: CO �c}:2 :r'_S 2L�;:Oi 1 i}' e=�eC.: ,
i:1C�L'C:i16� c� .he ODC10II Of �I12 COI:IIC��� 0:0��5:0.^.5 iC: a'_eC-P.,�^ ;J::Wc:�i
r�spor.sib:licy uoon t7e property ovrie: o: occu;.a:^..`:o do �;�e �o.E:
pe=sor.a?�y (excepc ir. :he case of s�:eet s�_'_a't::ir.g or o:he: dust
;reat�e.^,: , ���2V ie'Jcl�� Cl2° Lrl���;�lTl�� Cc:?, c11fi _2�0�'�� Oi �ilE
�oe=�:-o:: o� a st:eet li;h:ir.b sys:er�) uco:� no�ice be�ore the �o:k is
unde::ai:en, �n� fo= collectior. fron :he prope::� ot^�er or oche: pe=son
ser�ec o* t:^.e chzrges vnea due before un�aic c':ar��s are Waoe a special
assess�e:�c.
_ _
. - ��'j-�/�7` j
V
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Initiate PAGE
CSSP {Apprvd by Committee, 9/13/91? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Property Tax Relief:
Local Government Aid (Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91� . . 5
Constitutional Dedication of Sales Tax
{Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91� . . 7
Fiscal Disparities {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 8
Polluted Lands {Approved by Council, 9/19/91} . . . . . . . 10
MELSA Funding {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 13
Housing Issues (Apprvd by Committee, 11/22/91} . . . . . . . 17
HRA Expansion of Powers {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 24
Substantial Support
Metropolitan Parks/Como Park Dept Service
{Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 27
URAP {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . ., . . . . . . . . 32
Public Safety Issues {Apprvd by Committee, 11/22/91) . . . . 34
Maternal Child Health {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . 39
Parking Tag Income {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 41
Housing Court {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 43
Photo Cop {No recommendation, lack of quorum, li/8/91} . . . 45
Metropolitan Transportation Trust Fund
{No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 47
Immunization Transferability/Medical Records
{Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 49
Metropolitan State University
{No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 51
Presidential Primary Funding
{No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 53
Cultural Tourism/Historical Preservation District
{No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91) . 55
Monitor . � .
_ Health Care Access {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 58
Ayd Mill Road {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 60
Service Charge Definition Change .
{Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 62 _