In many suburbs, street lighting is paid through the water/sewer bill. The cities already charge various permit, inspection and licensing fees which are in effect a tax because they are based on value. Why should the school district get off and the church be asked to pay? The more desperate the cities get for revenue, the crazier the ideas they come up with.

Sounds good to me. No reason non-profits should be freeloaders and forcing taxpayers to subsidize them.

It should also be noted that an amount billed by a city to an entity without their consent, with penalties for non-payment and no opt-out clause, is not a fee. It is a tax, pure and simple.

Hey, don't worry though. I'm sure the area around the new Viking stadium will be plowed on game day.

When EVER will the government learn to work with less money and tighten their own belt.

Tax exempt is really a subsidy.

This article is wrong, very wrong. It states: "Minneapolis does not have any added fees, city officials said. The City Council passed a lighting fee in 2009, but it was never implemented because of opposition and other factors. The city found other revenue sources, they said." Houses of Worship in Minneapolis pay not only street maintenance fees, lighting fees, and a host of others, they also pay 3 times as much in special assessments as residental property does. These fees are cripling many neighborhood churches and charities, at a time when they are providing more services to the people of their neighborhoods than ever.

I can understand a charity not paying taxes on donations or earned income, but they should not be exempt from paying utilities. At the end of the day, what is the difference between a power bill, and a snow plowing bill? They are both necessary services that we all need to pay in order to survive here! If non-profits expect us property owners to pay for their snowplowing, then why don't they expect Xcel Energy to pay for their electricity? It doesn't make sense for taxpayers and cities to be this generous anymore.

It is ridiculous to assume because an organization is non profit that they serve the community. Some nonprofits have huge headquarters and serve the entire nation or the international community. Should the local tax payers have to pick up the tab for that? And, some churches provide community outreach and services but some don't at all. Yet they get off the hook.

Don't assume non-profits are poor. Some Leau huge salaries and have lavish offices. Perhaps for non-profits, taxes should be levied on their service to the community and their ability to pay. St. Thomas just finished raising 350 million dollars. Asking they to help pay for 112k for what the city provides them is very doable.