Issuu on Google+

City of Lakeville 2013 Legislative Priorities

Adopted February 4, 2013


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

City of Lakeville 2013 Legislative Priorities

I. Municipal Revenue & Taxation………………………………………..……………… 3 A. Levy Limits B. Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals

II. Transportation…………………………………………………………………………… 5 A. Transit Operations and Taxing District B. Transportation System Maintenance Funding C. Public Infrastructure Utilities D. Relieve Congestion Along I-35 through Lakeville E. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor

III. Economic Development……………………………………………………………...... 8 A. Tax Increment Financing B. State Development Programs

IV. Housing…………………………………………………………………………………… 9 A. City Role in Housing B. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing C. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements D. Housing Improvement Areas (HIA)

V. General Legislation……………………………………………………………..…….. 10 A. Administrative Citations B. Sunday Sales C. Growler Sales D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Disease and Pests E. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers F. Mandates & Local Authority G. Elected Metropolitan Council H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas I. Donation/Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property J. Data Requests for Citizens Contact Information

Page 2/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

Municipal Revenue & Taxation A. Levy Limits Position: The City of Lakeville strongly opposes levy limits and other forms of levy restrictions imposed upon local governments. Background: Lakeville believes the best decisions for local matters, including levels of property taxation, are best made by locally elected officials. The imposition of broad State mandates such as levy limits, “taxpayer’s bill of rights�, valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, fund balance restrictions and other limitations to the local government budget and taxing process can impose financial hardships on communities. Levy limits undermine local budgeting processes, planned growth, and the relationship between locally elected officials and their residents by having the State determine the appropriate level of local taxation and services, despite varying local conditions and circumstances. B. Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program Position: The City of Lakeville opposed the former market value homestead credit structure, because the state failed to reimburse most local units of government for costs of the program, which resulted in unpredictable holes in those local government budgets or required those jurisdictions to shift the cost of the program across its property taxpayers. Similarly, because the credit structure is no longer in place and the state is no longer paying any portion of its property tax relief program, implementation of the new MVHE program in 2012 forcibly shifted the property tax burden within local jurisdictions in the state and increased property taxes to pay for its costs. The City of Lakeville supports statutory changes to address issues that have been identified in the implementation of the program around levy limits based on market value, including those impacting economic development authorities and port authorities, as well as debt limits based on market value. These limits should be computed on the market value of the jurisdiction before the homestead market value exclusion is applied. The City of Lakeville also opposes restoration of the former Market Value Homestead Credit, and encourages elimination of the new exclusion, as the program shifts taxes onto other property classes and further complicates the property tax system. Background: In 2011, new state laws established a Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program, and repealed the Market Value Homestead Credit. The intent of both programs was to provide property tax relief to qualifying homesteads, the

Page 3/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

former MVHC through credits on local government tax bills and the new MVHE through reductions in property tax values. Under the former MVHC, the state reimbursed local governments in exchange for reducing the taxable value of qualifying properties. The new program pays for the property tax relief by shifting property taxes within jurisdictions. C. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution Position: The City of Lakeville supports the Fiscal Disparities Program and opposes any diversion from the fiscal disparities pool to fund specific programs or projects, as this would contradict the purposes of the program. Background: The Twin Cities Area Fiscal Disparities Program, enacted in 1971, was created for the purposes of: • Providing a way for local governments to share in the resources generated by the growth of the metropolitan area without removing existing resources. • To promote orderly development of the region by reducing the impact of fiscal considerations on the location of business and infrastructure. • To establish incentives for all parts of the area to work for the growth of the area as a whole. • To help communities at various stages of development. • To encourage protection of the environment by reducing the impact of fiscal considerations to ensure protection of parks, open space, and wetlands. The 2011 legislative study of Fiscal Disparities, which Metro Cities participated in and supported, has stimulated discussion of the program at the Legislature, and Metro Cities anticipates modifications to the program to be proposed in the 2013 legislative session. Legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program should only be considered within a framework of comprehensive reform efforts to the state’s property tax, aids and credits system. Any proposed legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program must be evaluated utilizing the criteria of fairness, equity, stability, transparency and coherence in the treatment of cities and taxpayers across the metropolitan region, and must continue to serve the program’s intended purposes. Further studies or task forces to consider modifications to the fiscal disparities program must include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives. D. Sales Tax on All Local Government Purchases Position: The City of Lakeville supports the reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases. The exemption must not be coupled with cuts in local government aid (LGA) or other state shared revenues. Page 4/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

Any future expansion of the sales tax base should exempt purchases by cities. Any sales tax study conducted by the Department of Revenue or the Legislature should review the practice of local units of government paying sales tax. Background: When the state was experiencing a budget shortfall in 1992, the Legislature repealed the sales tax exemption for local government purchase. Cities and counties now pay state sales tax on purchases like road maintenance supplies and equipment, wastewater treatment facilities, and some public safety equipment. This tax currently costs local property taxpayers and ratepayers more than $100 million annually. In addition, proposals to extend the sales tax to services would have the effect of increasing local government costs and property taxes. Because no additional state aids were added to offset the additional costs, this repeal has effectively increased local property taxes to finance state operations. E. Targeting Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals Position: The City supports targeting property tax relief directly to individuals as opposed to direct aid programs like Local Government Aid (LGA) and believes that property values are not the most appropriate measure of "ability to pay" property taxes. Background: Lakeville supports additional property tax relief to those in greatest need by directing dollars to the circuit breaker program from programs such as Local Government Aid. (LGA). The circuit breaker income adjusted property tax relief program provides direct assistance to those homeowners in greatest need whether or not those local homeowners reside in a city which receives direct aids from the State. Lakeville believes that on a long term basis, the State should focus property tax relief to individual taxpayers instead of local units of government. Such a program provides equitable tax relief to all property tax payers in Minnesota.

I.

Transportation A. Transit Operations and Taxing District Position: The City of Lakeville opposes the State imposing the Transit Taxing District upon cities. The City of Lakeville supports funding of all transit capital expenses and operating subsidies into the State budget through the use of Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) revenues or other statewide revenue sources. Background: The Transit Taxing District is a funding source for capital expenses such as transit stations and buses. These expenses account for about 10% of the cost of operating a transit system. The operating costs of the transit system are

Page 5/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

paid by all residents of the state through other revenues such as the gas tax and sales tax. The transit taxing district is an unfair tax in that it taxes a small geographic area for a service that is enjoyed by the entire state. The metropolitan transit service area has grown beyond the seven-county region and therefore no manner of regional taxation is sufficient to fairly distribute the cost of the capital expenses. B. Transportation System Maintenance Funding Policy: The City of Lakeville supports State efforts to bolster financial resources needed to address road and highway improvements. The City of Lakeville also supports efforts to provide cities with adequate tools to provide funding to maintain and improve local roadways. Background: Current levels of funding for roads and highways is inadequate to maintain existing road and highway needs and meets the needs of growing areas such as Lakeville. Lakeville recognizes the need for additional transportation funding statewide, and will continue to advocate for additional resources to maintain the State’s transportation infrastructure. In addition, cities still lack the authority to use additional tools for city street improvements; such resources continue to be restricted to property taxes and special assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority be granted to municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system. The City of will be financing more than $19 million of street maintenance and reconstruction projects with property taxes over the next five years. The requisite projects have the potential of resulting in a 3 - 6% annual increase in property taxes in the coming years. Street maintenance and reconstruction projects will be one of the most significant contributing factors to future property tax increases. This is addition to more than $25 million of project costs financed from other sources such as special assessments and municipal state-aid street funding. C. Public Infrastructure Utilities Position: The Legislature should authorize cities to create, as a local option, additional utilities such as a transportation or sidewalk utility. Such authority would acknowledge the effects of repeated levy limits and the general funding shift from the state to local governments for building and maintaining necessary infrastructure; the benefits to all taxpayers of a properly maintained public infrastructure; and, the limitations of existing special assessment authority. Background: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options available to cities are inadequate and unsustainable.

Page 6/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

Funding pressures have been exacerbated by levy limits, unallotment and reductions in the local government aid and market value homestead credit programs. The existing special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, does not meet cities’ financing needs because of the benefit requirement. The law requires a minimum of 20 percent of such a project to be specially assessed against affected properties. Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429 methods for financing infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. The Legislature has given cities the authority to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The storm sewer authority, established in 1983, set the precedent for a workable process of charging a use fee on a utility bill for a city service infrastructure that is of value to everyone in a city. Similar to the storm sewer authority, a transportation or sidewalk utility would use technical, well-founded measurements and would equitably distribute the costs of local infrastructure services. D. Relieve Congestion Along I-35 Through Lakeville Policy: Lakeville strongly encourages Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council to find ways to reduce congestion on I-35 through Lakeville. Background: The I-35 interstate corridor is the busiest, most heavily travelled highway corridor in Minnesota. Significant efforts have been made to reduce congestion, increase safety and improve traffic flow along this vital transportation roadway. Transit improvements made under the Urban Partnership Agreement in 2010 helps reduce the growth in traffic congestion by providing an effective alternative to automobile travelers for downtown commuters. But the corridor also feeds many other destinations for automobile and truck traffic. There is a need to expand the capacity of I-35 in Lakeville to further increase safety and improve traffic flow. Today there is congestion from the southern border of Lakeville to County Road 46 due to a shortage of lane capacity. In addition, approximately 196 crashes occurred in this section of Interstate 35 in 2010 and 2011 with four fatalities. The Federal Highway Administration has commented previously that additional lanes are warranted along this stretch of highway. Improving this condition will increase safety and be beneficial to the region as it is the southern gateway to the metropolitan area. In addition, a third lane on I-35 from County Road 50 to County Road 70 should be considered. A third lane in this area would provide increased regional access to the County Road 70 corridor and take full advantage of the newly completed County Road 70/I-35 interchange promoting continued corporate, office, industrial and commercial growth in this area. E. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Corridor Policy: Lakeville supports upholding the current law banning the study, planning, design or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor for commuter rail purposes.

Page 7/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

Background: The Dan Patch Corridor is a proposed commuter rail line that would serve a region which runs from Minneapolis to Northfield through the City of Lakeville. It was proposed as a passenger rail line in 2000 after being identified as a "Tier One" corridor in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's 2000 Commuter Rail System Plan. During the 2002 Minnesota legislative session a law was passed that prohibited any future study, planning, design or engineering of the Dan Patch Corridor for commuter rail purposes. Additionally, the law required removing all references, other than references for historical purposes, to the Dan Patch commuter rail line from any future revisions to the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Development Guide and Regional Transit Master Plan, the State Transportation Plan, and the Commissioner of Transportation's Commuter Rail System Plan.

II.

Economic Development A. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policy: Lakeville supports adding more time to the TIF flexibility given in the 2010 Jobs-State Stimulus bill. Current law requires that projects that utilize these new flexible provisions of the TIF statutes be under construction by July 1, 2011. Background: The City of Lakeville has recently adopted a 2011-13 Strategic Plan for Economic Development. One of the goals of this plan is to develop a toolbox of incentives to help facilitate economic development in the community. The City suggests the Legislature consider expanding the use of TIF to assist in the development of technological infrastructure and products, biotechnology, research, transportation and transit oriented development, non-retail commercial projects and modifying the various provisions of existing TIF law in order to better facilitate redevelopment and housing activities. The League of Minnesota Cities and Economic Development Association of Minnesota have adopted a similar policy on this issue. B. State Development Programs Policy: Lakeville supports continued State funding for Business Development Programs. Background: Current business development programs include the Minnesota Investment Fund and the Innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure Program administered by DEED and the Transportation Economic Development (TED) and Safety and Mobility Programs (SAM) administered by MnDOT. There will continue to be needs to fund public infrastructure and other aspects of commercial and industrial development that previously were able to be financed with private funding sources.

Page 8/14


City of Lakeville

IV.

2013 Legislative Priorities

Housing A. City Role in Housing Policy: Lakeville strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities’ authority to properly provide land-use planning, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations based on the current housing stock, demographics, and market conditions. Background: In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via responsibilities in the areas of land-use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Many cities choose to play an additional role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing programs and supporting either local or countywide housing and redevelopment authorities. Cities are also responsible for ensuring the health and safety of local residents and the structural soundness and livability of the local housing stock via enforcement of the State Building Code. B. City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Policy: Lakeville supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes that they are important to the economic and social well being of individual communities and the region. Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of state and federal governments and should not be borne by local property tax payers. Background: Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable and lifecycle housing by: • Applying for state or federal funding from applicable grant and loan programs; • Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing neighborhoods. • Establish standards that encourage affordable housing. C. Residential Sprinkler Code Requirements Policy: Lakeville recommends the State reject the International Building Code provision that would require the installation of fire sprinklers in new single-family and two-family homes. Background: The 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) contains a provision that requires fire sprinkler systems to be installed in single family and two family homes. The State of Minnesota reviewed this code during 2011 and is scheduled to adopt the new 2012 IRC in the spring of 2012. One of the significant policy issues is whether the State will choose to adopt the portion of the 2012 IRC that includes the residential sprinkler provisions or whether they choose to amend this

Page 9/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

provision out of the new code. The State of Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry convened an Advisory Committee on this issue that included representatives of City Building Officials, Fire Marshals, Sprinkler System Consultants, Manufacturers, and Installers, Builders Organizations and representatives of City and County organizations. The intent was to see if a compromise could be reached amongst the various groups on this issue. After several meetings, the Builders Groups (BATC and BAM) concluded that no information was presented addressing the public policy question as to whether this requirement makes sense for Minnesota. As a result, these organizations do not support adopting a new building code that requires sprinklers for one and two family dwellings. D.

Housing Improvement Areas (HIA)

Policy: The City of Lakeville supports legislation to extend the authority of cities to create new HIA(s) and eliminate the expiration clause within the law. Background: A housing improvement area (HIA) is a defined area in a city in which housing improvements in condominium or townhome complexes may be financed with the assistance of the city, or the city’s economic development authority (EDA) or housing and redevelopment authority (HRA). Prior to 1996, cities needed special legislation to establish an HIA. In 1996, cities were granted the authority under general law. The law is set to expire on June 30, 2013. The City of Lakeville created its first HIA in 2012 for the Niakwa Village 2nd Addition townhome development. This is a 52 unit townhome development constructed in the 1980s in need of improvements to the exterior of the units which are the responsibility of the homeowners association. Conventional bank financing for the improvements could not be obtained by the homeowners association. The creation of the HIA allowed the homeowners association to obtain financing through the Dakota County CDA. The City is likely to have other townhome associations in similar situations in the coming years.

V.

General Legislation A. Administrative Citations Policy: Lakeville supports the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, public nuisance ordinances, and regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher level state traffic and criminal offenses. The Legislature should clarify that both statutory and home rules charter cities have the authority to issue administrative citations for code violations. Further, state statute should allow statutory and home rule charter cities to adjudicate administrative citations and to assess a lien on properties for unpaid administrative fines.

Page 10/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

Background: Many statutory and home rule charter cities have implemented administrative enforcement programs for violations of local regulatory ordinances such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public nuisance ordinances. This use of administrative proceedings has kept enforcement at the local level and reduced pressure on over-burdened district court systems. Cities using administrative enforcement processes experience a lower cost of enforcement and a quicker resolution to code violations. Minnesota statutes expressly provide the authority for all cities to utilize administrative enforcement of local codes and enforcement of liquor license and tobacco license violations. In 2009, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. ch. 169, the chapter of law pertaining to state traffic regulations, to allow cities and counties to issue administrative citations for certain minor traffic offenses. Since the passage of the 2009 administrative traffic citations law, some people have questioned whether administrative citations for nontraffic, liquor, and tobacco license code violations can be legally issued by statutory cities given that state law does not expressly provide authority on other code matters. B. Sunday Sales Policy: The City of Lakeville is opposed to any legislation that would allow off-sale Sunday sales of alcohol. Background: The City of Lakeville is a member the Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association. The Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association has taken the position to oppose Sunday sales, as has the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association. There are two groups pushing this agenda, the DISCUS – Distilled Spirits Council of the United States which is a national distilled spirits association (not to be confused with our wholesalers and distributors who oppose the legislation), and a small advocacy group called the Minnesota Beer Activists (this is not an industry association, it is a group of beer advocates that believe Sunday sales is philosophically beneficial to their personal lives). Advocates of the legislation state that Sunday sales has the potential to increase state revenue on liquor taxes to increase by 5-7%. This has not been the case in the states that have allowed Sunday sales. In addition, in the State of New Mexico where the legislation was changed to allow Sunday sales, two separate studies have been completed that has proven that Sunday sales have been associated with increased traffic deaths and has negatively impacted health care providers, insurers, law enforcement and the judicial systems. In fact the impacts were so negatively impacting public safety so much that some counties have quickly held elections to re-institute bans on Sunday packaged alcohol sales.

Page 11/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

C. Growler Sales Policy: The City of Lakeville opposes any legislation allowing growler sales at offsale liquor establishments and retailers. Background: Growlers are 22 oz. or 64 oz. refillable containers used by patrons to purchase and carry out draft beer. Growler sales were first approved by the legislature four years ago, in which brew pubs could sell their draught beers to the public. Locations would include Granite City Pubs and the like. There is now a push by consumers to do similar in off sale locations. The Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association has taken the position that growler sales are “metrocentric” and very few retailers would take advantage of it due to the writing of proposed legislation which states: “Only beers that are not available in the market in any other package form would be allowed to sell in growlers” This would mean that an off sale could only sell beers that are not available in any other form, thus eliminating premium craft beers such as Summit and Lienenkugal’s. There are several additional issues with this legislation such as labeling, high cost of tap lines, liability regarding sanitation and other health codes. In addition, many beer wholesalers do not want this to occur with their products as they believe the integrity of their product could be jeopardized if not handled properly. D. Funding to Manage Shade Tree Diseases and Pests Policy: Lakeville supports state funding that would assist cities with meeting the costs of addressing shade tree disease and pest problems. Background: The resurgence of Dutch Elm Disease, the spread of Oak Wilt and the growing Emerald Ash Borer infestation have brought about a significantly increased need for city tree removal services. Consequently, this has put fiscal pressure on city budgets at a time when many are still experiencing aid cuts. Although the Department of Natural Resources’ ReLeaf program and the Department of Agriculture’s Shade Tree and Invasive Species program currently allow for addressing tree disease and pest problems, funding levels have been inadequate to assist cities. Cities share the goal of the state’s ReLeaf program— promoting and funding the planting, maintenance, and improvement of trees in the state. By not having the resources to take preventative steps to halt fast-spreading diseases by removing infected trees in a timely manner, it ends up costing cities significantly more in the long run. E. Franchising Competitive Cable Service Providers Policy: Lakeville supports changes to the existing federal or state cable franchising statutes that fully maintain local authority and assure that all providers meet community needs and interests, including PEG channel capacity, funding and institutional networks (I-Nets) consistent with up-to-date technology and tailored to reasonable technical and operational differences among providers.

Page 12/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

Background: Under current state law, local franchising authorities must adopt agreements that are “no more favorable or less burdensome” with regard to area served, public, educational and government (PEG) programming and franchise fees. The state Legislature and Congress should recognize and support increased flexibility in the exercise of local franchising authority in order to encourage entry by competitive multi-channel video service providers, without giving unfair advantage to one provider over another. Local franchising authorities need flexibility to take advantage of opportunities to provide increased customer choice while requiring a measure designed to prevent economic, racial or other discriminatory redlining or “cherry-picking” that could result in creation of a “digital divide” within the community. F. Mandates & Local Authority Policy: Lakeville opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create mandated additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities’ ability to fund traditional service needs. G. Elected Metropolitan Council Policy: The City of Lakeville supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor. Background: The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area and providing essential services to the region. The 17-member Metropolitan Council has 16 members who each represent a geographic district and one chair serving at large. They are all appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the governor. The State Senate confirms Council member appointments. H. Storage of Railroad Cars Within Urban Residential Areas Policy: Minnesota's Federal Congressional Representatives should initiate legislative actions to create laws or rules that would prohibit the current practice of storing railroad cars within urbanized residential neighborhoods without the express written consent of the City. Background: An active but little used section of freight railroad track runs through the City of Lakeville and a majority of the track runs through residential Page 13/14


City of Lakeville

2013 Legislative Priorities

neighborhoods or is adjacent to residential homes. While the railroad track is classified as an active line several sections are in poor condition and are not used. Therefore, the tracks are being used for the storage of inactive rail cars in accordance with current Federal authority without any limits as to the amount of time that they may be stored. Adjacent residential property owners are experiencing detrimental effects on their homes and neighborhoods due to the storage of these railroad cars including visual blight impacts affecting residential home values, safety of children and general welfare of the community. Lakeville City Council passed a resolution in 2009 requesting Minnesota's Federal Congressional Representatives initiate legislative actions to address this issue. I. Donation/Acquisition of DNR Tax Forfeit Property Policy: Lakeville supports revised legislation to streamline the process to allow the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to quickly and efficiently transfer tax forfeiture properties to local government units. Background: There are several parcels throughout the City of Lakeville currently owned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that were acquired through tax forfeiture. Many of these parcels are adjacent to lakes or wetlands and are not developable. Many of these properties would provide natural open space areas, passive parks or space for the construction of trail connections to city and regional trail systems. The DNR is currently working to transfer these properties to the local government units where they are located. J. Data Requests for Citizens Contact Information Policy: The City of Lakeville supports legislation to amend the Data Practices Act to make citizen contact information not accessible to the public. Citizens who submit their email addresses or phone numbers to local units of government should not have their contact information disclosed to third parties for marketing, soliciting, campaigning or other purposes by operation of the Data Practices Act. Background: Cities have seen an increase in data requests for the email addresses of any and all citizens who have contacted the City to conduct business, register a complaint, express an opinion about a City service, or simply to receive general information from the City via email. Citizens have expressed frustration that the act of contacting their city government makes their email addresses available to any third party who makes a data practices request. Email addresses and other contact information are public data under the Data Practices Act, and cities are required to provide the requested information to any person requesting it. Once disclosed, the email addresses can then be used for marketing, soliciting, campaigning, or commercial purposes. The release of citizen contact information to third parties undermines trust in government and makes it less likely that citizens will contact the City.

Page 14/14


LegislativePriorities