MUNICIPAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT IN
ESTONIA
Sander Põllumäe1
ABSTRACT: A rapid property reform was carried out in Estonia in the beginning of 1990ties. Assets that belonged to executive committees of town, parishes, and villages were transferred to local government units that were formed on the basis of the same executive committees system. These assets have been both burden (big sports- and administrative facilities in
small rural areas) and source of revenue (houses and land in capital and other towns). In addition municipalities were legally entitled to use state assets free of charge or to obtain from
state facilities that they needed for execution of their statutory tasks. In this paper author will
discuss either local government units have used assets transferred to them for collection of
revenues (sale, lease, rent and other) or provision of local services and have a close look how
local government units manage their assets.
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Municipal property .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Property transfer ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Legal framework ................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1. Acquisition of Property................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2. Registration of Assets .................................................................................................. 7
2.2.3. Administration of Assets ............................................................................................. 7
2.2.4. Assets Related Revenues ............................................................................................. 9
2.2.5. Control and Supervision ............................................................................................ 11
2.3. Asset classification ........................................................................................................... 13
3. Case study ................................................................................................................................ 13
3.1. Framework and Methodology........................................................................................... 13
3.2. Overview of the Municipality........................................................................................... 15
3.3. Rules of Assets Management............................................................................................ 15
4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 17
5. References................................................................................................................................ 17
1. Introduction
Republic of Estonia regained its independence on 20th of August 1991. Area of the republic is 45227
sq/km, population is 1347000 inhabitants and population density is 31.2 people per sq/km. The territory of Estonia is divided into 15 state administration units (county) and local government units.
There is one tier local government system that embraces 227 local government units (33 towns and
194 rural municipalities) in Estonia. The average population of local government unit is ca 6000 in1
Sander Põllumäe is a lecturer and head of chair of law in Public Service Academy of Estonia. He has graduated on 2003
from the public administration master program in Tallinn University of Technology and is PhD candidate in Faculty of
Social Science of Tallinn University of Technology.
2(18)
habitants (the biggest is the capital Tallinn with 401380 inhabitants and smallest is rural municipality
Piirisaare with 96 inhabitants)2.
There is great diversity on revenues among local government units. The average total revenue in
2007 was 88761000 EEK (5675255 EUR) (the biggest in the capital Tallinn 6063859000 EEK
(387714769 EUR) and the smallest in rural municipality Ruhnu 4433000 EEK (283439 EUR)). The
average revenue from sale of assets on 2007 was 2541000 EEK (162468 EUR), but here the biggest
revenues have been collected by a small rural municipality Rae nearby capital (205394000 EEK,
13132608 EUR) and the next is Tallinn (170016000 EEK, 10870588 EUR). At the same time 62 municipalities (i.e. 27,3% of total) had no revenues from sale of assets. The relative importance of sale
of assets on 2007 was 2,86 %, however it is highly irregularly divided between different size and
type of local government units.
Expenditures on maintenance and purchase of assets were in 2007 in average 17856000 EEK
(1144615 EUR). Highest expenditures were in Tallinn 1136526000 EEK (72667902 EUR), whereas
rural municipality Alajõe had no budgetary expenditures of maintenance or purchase of assets. The
comparison of revenues and expenditures on assets shows, that assets are small source of income for
local government units. However, these budgetary figures do not show the expenditures hidden in the
operational costs and rentals in the situation where local government units have outsourced or contracted out their services and transferred assets to private legal bodies.
The paper is based on O. Kaganova et al. 1999 "Municipal real property asset management: An overview of world experience, issues, financial implications and housing". Data about local government
asset management and problems is collected from annual reports of State Audit Office of the Republic of Estonia (www.riigikontroll.ee), annual reports and opinions of Legal Chancellor of the Republic of Estonia (www.oiguskantsler.ee), collected budgetary data and reports of Ministry of Finance of
the Republic of Estonia (www.fin.ee) and analyzes of Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Estonia
(www.siseministeerium.ee).
The aim of this paper is to provide better understanding of management and maintenance of local
government assets in Estonia since beginning of 1990s. The analysis focuses on legal and administrative aspects of assets management and has a closer look at assets as a source of revenue for local
government. For this purpose a theory of local government autonomy and theory of constitutional
guarantees of local self-government is used. The author will provide a closer look to the constitutional framework and constrains of municipal assets management from the perspective of constitutional
guarantee of organization of local self-government. This paper aims to answer whether assets are only a technical mean for fulfilling local government tasks or do they have a broader social, political, or
economical influence on the local government autonomy?
To provide a better understanding of the meaning of local government assets, author carries out a
case study in small rural municipality Saku. Rural municipality Saku situates about 20 km from Tallinn in so called "golden circle" of capital. The paper mostly draws on the analysis of the legal acts,
administrative records and financial records. Also interviews with administrative and political leaders
will be conducted. According to § 37 of Constitution of Republic of Estonia local government units
have to maintain educational facilities. Therefore schools, kindergartens and facilities for after-school
activities, sports and youth centres are taken under closer scrutiny?/investigation. Author will also
analyze the revenues collected as rental or fees for participating in training, clubs etc.
In the first chapter of this paper provides an overview of the situation in Estonia. The chapter primarily focuses on the overall legal framework of the current situation, gives the outlook of public and
civil law regulation, accompanied by detailed Supreme Court of Estonia customary law on municipal
property disposal. The chapter is divided into four sections providing overview of the property trans2
Data 01.01.2008; source http://www.siseministeerium.ee/5945.
3(18)
fer, legal framework, asset classification and nation wide time series data. In the third chapter of this
paper case study of rural municipality of Saku is provided.
The article is based on research protocol of Working Group on Public Sector Finance and Accounting of NISPAcee 17th Annual Conference and report "Municipal Real Property Asst Management:
An Overview of World Experience, Issues, Financial Implications, and Housing" prepared for the
World Bank by Urban Institute (Olga Kaganova, Ritu Nayyar-Stone, Sally Merrill and George Peterson) in November 1999, Estonian legislation and data provided by Rural Municipality of Saku.
2. Municipal property
According to § 154 (1) of Constitution of the Republic of Estonia "all local issues shall be resolved
and managed by local governments, which shall operate independently pursuant to law." Local government units are based on principles of autonomy and self-management. They are separated from
the central government both politically by election of council and legally as separate constitutional
and legal institution. As a legal body in public law local government units do not bear the constitutional rights (including the right for protection of property (§ 32 of the Constitution)), at the same
time local government is owner of property under parliamentary statutes (id est Law of Property
Act). According to § 10 (1) of the Local Government Organisation Act (LGOA) are "rural municipalities and cities are legal persons in public law". According to § 25 (2) of the General Principles of
the Civil Code Act "local governments are legal persons that have been created in public interests".
The provisions concerning legal persons apply to the state and the local governments in so far as not
otherwise provided by law. A legal person under public law shall not have civil rights or obligations
which are contrary to its objective. (§ 25(4) and (5) of the General Principles of the Civil Code Act)
According to § 5(2) of the Law of Property Act local government units have equal real rights unless
otherwise provided by law. Real rights include ownership and restricted real rights (servitudes, real
encumbrances, right of superficies, right of pre-emption and right of security). Local government unit
as an owner has the right to possess, use and dispose of a thing, and to demand the prevention of violation of these rights and elimination of the consequences of violation from all other persons (§68(1)
of the Law of Property Act).
Constitution also grants local government and state budgetary separation. According to § 157(1) of
the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia "a local government shall have an independent budget for
which the bases and procedure for drafting shall be provided by law". Independent budget means in
the context of constitution that local governments own their property and municipal property is not
state's property. This is specified by § 34(1) of the LGOA as follows: "Municipal property is property in the ownership of a rural municipality or city." Local government’s legal position as an owner is
not only a matter of private law, but has aspects in public law as well. On 28.09.1994 Parliament of
Estonia ratified European Charter of Local Self-Government (the Charter). Article 9, par 2 of the
Charter declares: "Local authorities' financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution and the law." It is state's obligation to provide such property and
revenues that matches with local governments' responsibilities.
From the perspective of local government autonomy the Constitution divides public issues into local
and state issues (state duties). This requires the legislator (i.e. the Parliament) to determine, which
issues are local and which are national by nature. Constitutional enactment also relates financing of
the public issue to this division of tasks. § 154(2) of the Constitution prescribe: "Expenditure related
to duties of the state imposed by law on a local government shall be funded from the state budget."
The concept "expenditure" in the Constitution is broader than just finance and covers also handing
state assets over to local government units, which are entitled to assist to fulfil state duties imposed
on local governments. Statutory provisions for these actions are laid down in State Assets Act.
4(18)
2.1. Property transfer
Pursuant to statutory order of USSR land was not considered to be object of law of property. Only
houses and facilities were considered property in civil turnover. Land belonged to state and was administered by executive committees. Transfer of property started with creation of independent local
self-government institution in 1989, when Supreme Council passed a Local Self-Government Foundations Act of SSR of Estonia. According to that act local government units were founded on
grounds of former executive committees and all assets were transferred newly founded local selfgovernment units. All budgetary assets of executive committees were automatically considered to be
municipal property (also included natural resources on the territory of municipal unit3). Still most of
the assets and land remained in state ownership and were subject to Ownership Reform and Land Reform.
The purpose of ownership reform was to restructure ownership relations in order to ensure the inviolability of property and free enterprise, to undo the injustices caused by violation of the right of ownership and to create the preconditions for the transfer to a market economy (§ 2(1) of the Principles of
Ownership Reform Act). Among other subjects local government units were entitled subjects of
ownership reform with regard to unlawfully expropriated municipal property which had been in the
ownership of the local government on 16 June 1940 and was located in the current administrative territory of the local government applying for return thereof (§ 7(1)5) of the Principles of Ownership
Reform Act). Local government authorities could also determine, which object of ownership reform
is not subject to return if it is cultural object, social asset or administrative building in the possession
of local government (§ 12(3)5) of the Principles of Ownership Reform Act).
Land reform is a part of ownership reform. In land reform, unlawfully expropriated land is returned
to its former owners or their legal successors or they are compensated therefore, land is transferred
for or without charge into the ownership of persons in private law, legal persons in public law or local governments, and land to be retained in state ownership is determined (§ 1(1) of the Land Reform
Act). As a rule all unlawfully expropriated land had to be returned to its former owner or their legal
successors, but there were some exemptions in favour to local government. Land situated beyond city
boundaries under buildings or constructions belonging to a local government and the land necessary
for servicing these buildings or constructions is not returned unless the entitled subject and the local
government agree on the constitution of a right of superficies for the local government unit or on
transfer of the structure to the entitled subject (§ 10(1) of the Land Reform Act). Still the main feature for property transfer in property and land reform was municipalisation.

3
Municipalisation of Property. Until 1st November 2001 local governments had the right to
claim transfer into municipal ownership of property located in their administrative territory or
property in their possession subject to municipalisation (municipalisation). Municipalisation
means transfer of property into the ownership of a rural municipality or a city or into the joint
ownership of such local governments in the course of ownership reform with or without a
privatisation obligation (§ 20 of the Principles of Ownership Reform Act). An object of municipalisation is property owned by the state the transfer of which to a local government is
necessary for performance of its functions and the retention of which in state ownership is not
in the public interest or the privatisation of which through a local government is justified
(§ 21(1) of the Principles of Ownership Reform Act). Property which was an object of municipalisation was transferred without charge into municipal ownership at the request of a rural
municipality council or city council or on the proposal of a government agency in agreement
with the rural municipality council or city council pursuant to a decision of the Ministry of
Economic Affairs and Communications (§ 23(1) of the Principles of Ownership Reform Act).
Regulation No 12 of the Government of the Republic 17.01.1991 "Temporary Order of Administration and Use of Natural Environment and Resources Transferred to Authority of Primary Level Administrative Units and Municipal Agencies".
5(18)
In a decision on transfer of property subject to municipalisation a government agency organising municipalisation could prescribe an obligation of the corresponding local government to
privatise the property to be transferred into municipal ownership by a specified date. The
property could not be encumbered or transferred outside of the privatisation obligation. The
government agency organising municipalisation had the right to claim compensation for damage caused by violation of such obligations. (§ 28(1) of the Principles of Ownership Reform
Act) The obligation of privatization was regulated in more details in § 32--§ 41 of the Principles of Ownership Reform Act;

Municipalisation of Land. Municipalisation of land was transferring of land into municipal
ownership without charge. Municipalisation of land was regulated by § 25--§28 of the Land
Reform Act and regulation No 133 of Government of the Republic 02.06.2006 "Procedure for
transfer of land into municipal ownership". According to § 28(1) of the Land Reform Act the
following land was to be transferred into municipal ownership: 1) land under buildings and
constructions retained in municipal ownership and the land for servicing them; [--] 3) land
under bodies of water retained in municipal ownership; 4) public land; 5) agricultural land of
a private limited company where the only share belongs to a local government or of a public
limited company where all the shares belong to a local government, and agricultural land necessary for the performance of the duties of an agency administered by a local government; [--]
7) land which had been in the ownership of a local government on 16 June 1940 and was situated in the administrative territory of the local government currently applying for municipalisation[--]; 8) common land which was in the ownership of a village community on 16 June
1940[--]. As municipalisation of land was related to quite an amount of cases of corruption
and misuse (often municipality sold municipalised land to physical or legal persons in private
law for diminutive price – auditing report No 2-5/04/100 24.08.2004 of National Audit Office) the Land Reform Act was amended on 27.11.2005 by serious restrictions on use and
disposition of land. Municipality is allowed to use municipalised land only for the purposes
specified in decision of municipalisation (§ 25(2) of the Land Reform Act). Local government
can change intended use of public land, dispose or constitute a right of usufruct or superficies
of public land only on permission of Minister of the Environment, which is granted on
grounds of motivated application of local government (§ 25(3) of the Land Reform Act). Local government units, which have disposed or constituted a right of superficies or usufruct on
municipalised land, have to transfer 63.5 % of sale price, from which are sound expenses are
deducted, to state budget (§ 25(4) of the Land Reform Act). Although this has reduced local
government incentives for dispossession of municipalised land, municipalities have found
new loophole – they constitute a right of superficies on non-public land and dispose the right
of superficies or usufruct separate from selling the land and transfer only 63.5% of price of
land to state. The dispute of lawfulness of this practice is not settled yet, but it is clearly
against the reasons of legislator.
According to public data of Estonian Land Board (http://www.maaamet.ee) during period 1993—
2007 only 0.49 % of land was municipalized, on 2008 additional 0.06 % of land was municipalized
and total 0.55 % of land in Estonia is municipalized.
2.2. Legal framework
2.2.1. Acquisition of Property
1.
According to the State Assets Act (SAA) local government that needs state assets for
executing local tasks can either use them without charge or acquire them without charge or below
usual value. Government of the Republic may grant the use of state assets without charge to local
government, if it needs state assets for performance of its functions (§ 18(1)2) of the SAA). Government of the Republic may transfer state assets without charge or below usual price to local government if these assets are needed for health care, educational or social welfare institutions of a local
6(18)
government or for performance of other local government functions (§ 24(1)3) of the SAA). According to § 34(3) of the LGOA "a local government may transfer an immovable which has been transferred into its ownership without charge by the state if such immovable ceases to be necessary or has
become unsuitable for the performance of the functions of the local government. An immovable
transferred by the state without charge may be transferred only pursuant to the procedure established by the local government council".
2.
Local government units are titled for right of pre-emption, right of succession and occupation of derelict plots. According to § 34(4) of the Local Government Organization Act "a local
government has the right of pre-emption upon the transfer of structures located within its administrative territory by persons in private law if such structures were, in whole or in part, used by an educational, health care, cultural or child care institution for not less than one year prior to the transfer."
The aim of this right of pre-emption is to grant local government access to property that it needs for
provision of services and arranging local issues. In addition to right of pre-emption (pursuant to
§ 34(4) of the Local Government Organization Act) local government had until 1st January 2002, an
actual right of pre-emption in its territory of administration with respect to all immovable in the case
of their transfer in any manner. If an immovable is situated in the territory of several local governments, the local governments have a common right of pre-emption. The right of pre-emption was not
valid upon transfer of an immovable or a legal share thereof by the state or a local government, or
upon transfer to a spouse, descendants, parents, sisters and brothers and their descendants, or upon
sale by auction, transfer to the state or a local government, exercise of a right of pre-emption by another person entitled by law, or upon succession. (§ 20 of Law of Property Act Implementation Act)
The aim of this specific regulation was to correct possible misuse of right of restitution of privatization.
Local government unit can be either interstate successor under the law or testamentary successor.
According to § 18(1) of Law of Succession Act the local government of the place of opening of a
succession is the intestate successor if there are no bequeather’s spouse and the relatives (interstate
successors). In the case of intestate succession, a local government cannot renounce the succession.
In the case of intestate succession, a local government shall be deemed to accept the succession regardless of whether the requirements for acceptance of the succession are met. (§ 125(1) and (2) of
Law of Succession Act) If the successor is not known and does not report of himself or herself within
one month from the publication of the call in the calling proceedings for determining the successor,
or if a person who has reported of himself or herself fails to certify his or her right of succession
within one month after the due date of the calling proceedings, it is presumed that the intestate successor is the local government of the place of opening of a succession. In this case, the successor may
reclaim the estate from the local government. (§ 125 (3)—(4) of Law of Succession Act) Local government unit is obligated to make inventory of the estate (§ 136(1) of Law of Succession Act). A
claim for inventory may be submitted to a notary together with an application for the commencement
of succession proceedings or an application for acceptance of the succession (§ 137(1) of Law of
Succession Act). A notary shall appoint a bailiff in whose territorial jurisdiction the succession opens
for making an inventory (§ 138(1) of Law of Succession Act). In order to determine the obligations
of the bequeather, calling proceedings shall be carried out in the course of making an inventory
(§ 140(1) of the Law of Succession Act). After making an inventory the liability of a successor for
obligations related to the estate is restricted to the value of the estate (§ 143(1) of the Law of Succession Act).
Normally acquisition of a structure as a movable is not effected by finding or occupation. An exemption has made for state and local government to prevent problems related to ownerless structures.
According to § 13(2) of Law of Property Act Implementation Act a local government and the state
have the right and obligation of occupation of an ownerless structure pursuant to procedure established by the Government of the Republic. The procedure is established by regulation No 211 of
Government of the Republic 08.08.1996 "Determination of Procedure of Occupation of Ownerless
Structures" (hereafter: Procedure of Occupation). On the grounds of Procedure of Occupation both
7(18)
ownerless buildings and constructions, which have not been registered as immovable in register of
real estate, can be occupied. Structure is ownerless, if owner of the structure has abandoned structure
with will to give up ownership. The will to give up ownership is presumed, if owner of structure has
expressed the will to give up ownership, or owner of structure is not known (clause 4 of Procedure of
Occupation). If the dwelling of known owner of structure is not known, the person will be declared
missing and tender of the structure will be appointed. Local government must register ownerless
structure and publish an announcement in Official Journal and newspaper about occupation of ownerless structure, last known owner of the structure and deadline of presenting of objections (clause 9
of Procedure of Occupation). Council of local government shall decide on bases of evidences and
objections if the structure is ownerless. After decision of occupation of ownerless structure has
comes into effect, Government of the Republic will decide if structure is needed for execution of
state duties and if state occupies the ownerless structure. If state does not to occupy ownerless structure, local government becomes the owner of the structure (clause 14 of Procedure of Occupation).
2.2.2. Registration of Assets
As a rule all immovable assets have to be registered in register of real estate. The registration of
ownership in register of real estate constitutes ownership of immovable assets. There are though
some exemptions of this rule for local government. According to § 112(1) of Law of Property Act
Implementation Act land transferred into municipal ownership shall be entered in the land register on
the basis of a written registration application of a person authorised by the local government, a document certifying the right of ownership of the land of the local government, and the cadastre information. An extract from the Official Journal (Riigi Teataja) in which the resolution concerning the
transfer of land into municipal ownership is published is also a document certifying the right of municipal ownership of the land. Before municipalisation, the requirement specified in § 51 (2) of the
Law of Property Act concerning entry in the land register of an immovable belonging to a person in
public law before transfer of the immovable into the possession of another person does not apply to
land being transferred into municipal ownership. From one side this reduces costs of municipalisation, but also causes contradiction between different registers of assets (register of real estate, cadastre, bookkeeping registers, building register and other registers). On 2003 National Audit Office
found that it is not known, which assets local governments own and what is their real value (auditing
report No 2-5/04/100 24.08.2004 of National Audit Office).
The other exemption is related to local roads. A local road is a local highway, street, footpath and cycle track which is constructed for the organisation of local traffic on the basis of a resolution of a rural municipality or city council and a winter road prescribed for local traffic. List of local roads is determined with decision of rural municipality or city council. (§ 51 of Roads Act). Rural municipality
and city governments shall organise the management of local roads and are required to create the
conditions for safe traffic on such roads (§ 25(3) of Roads Act). According to § 11(1)3) of Roads Act
all local roads have to be registered in National Register of Roads. Roads Act presumes that owner of
local roads is local government, but there is no precise regulation about it. Formally ownership of
road is specified by rural municipalities of city council decision and registration into National Register of Reads and cadastre. According to § 25(5) of Land Reform Act boarder protocols are not drawn
up on registration of public land, land under municipal ponds, streets and local roads in cadastre. In
practice there are streets and roads that are registered in neither National Register of Roads nor cadastre, neither can the owner of roads be determined by register of real estate. Local government
units have also used this loophole to avoid responsibilities related to road management and safety.
2.2.3. Administration of Assets
There are no statutory regulations on administration of local government assets. According to
§ 22(1)6) and 34(2) of LGOA the establishment of the procedure for the administration of the rural
8(18)
municipality or city assets is within the exclusive competence of a municipal or city council. This is
done by issuing regulation on administration of municipal assets. Each rural municipality or city has
its own rules on administration of municipal property (see also case study of Rural Municipality of
Saku, below).
It is common, that rural municipalities and city council have set down rules of administration of municipal assets similar to regulation in the State Assets Act. Rights and obligations of administration of
municipal assets are usually divided between administrator of municipal assets or an authorised
agency. Administrators of municipal assets are council and government or its board (agency with authority of executive power). Authorised agency is a municipal agency into whose possession an administrator of municipal assets has transferred assets under its administration (schools, kindergartens,
hobby schools, nursing homes et alia). The procedures and authority of acquisition encumber, or dispossession of assets is commonly related to accounting value or acquisition costs of assets. This leads
sometimes to situation, when authorised agencies are competent to make decisions about real estate
and other important assets because of incorrect accounting value of assets. According to § 13(1) of
State Assets Act state assets are used: 1) for public purposes; 2) to exercise the powers of state; 3) to
generate income. This division of purposes of use of assets is also copied to regulation of most of local regulations of administration of assets (compare with Denver Portfolio Classification Model, below).
According to general belief administration and supervision of local government assets is matter of
organisational authority of local government granted as a constituent of autonomy by § 154(1) of the
Constitution. Parliament has not intervened local government autonomy in matters of administration
of municipal property, but Supreme Court has set down in its practice some general principles and
requirements that have to be met in rural municipalities and city council regulations on administration of assets. National Court has found that management of municipal assets is matter of public law
and is bound with restrictions and principles of rule of law and good administration:

In case No 3-3-1-15-01 Administrative Chamber of Supreme Court found, that disposition of
property of person in public law is regulated by special statutory acts and regulations in public law. Even if land owned by city can be dispossessed with contract in civil law, regulation
No 10 of Tallinn City Council 20.04.1997 "Rules of encumber and giving in rent of city land"
is regulation in public law. State and municipal property is mainly constituted of property for
implementation of public tasks. If city chooses between several persons, who want to rent city
land, it is executing public authority. City has to consider public interests, which do not always consist of gaining profit. City has to avoid unequal treatment and follow motivated considerations and rules of discretions.

In case No 3-4-1-4-02 Constitutional Supervision Chamber of Supreme Court found, that local government can constitute charges for permit of sale on public land only if there is statutory provision delegating authority for such regulation. Creating local charges is not local issue,
which could be decided autonomously. Court rejected arguments of Tallinn City Government
that by economic merit the charges for permit of sale on public land were rent for use of city
land. Court found that such charges were monetary obligations in public law, which according to § 113 and § 114 of the Constitution can be issued only by statutory provisions adopted
by Parliament.

In case No 3-3-1-35-05 Administrative Chamber of Supreme Court found, that while conducting, transforming or termination of contracts with municipal property rural municipality
and city must take account of public interest, the goal of transaction and legitimate interests of
people. If conclusion of contract required by law following of public procedure, similar procedure has to be followed while changing contract or transferring contractual obligations to
other person. Contractual behaviour of rural municipality or city must be in compliance with
principle of good administration.
9(18)
2.2.4. Assets Related Revenues
Municipal assets are also source of revenues for local government units. Two most general revenues
are income from sale of assets and rent of tenement or lease. Estonian local government units are rather small. The average revenues amount has risen from 749697.3 thousand EUR on 2003 to
1458510.3 thousand EUR on 2008. Local government revenues have constantly formed about 8.6%
of GDP on 2003 to 8.7% of GDP on 2008. As can be seen on following chart (Figure 1), major part
of local government revenues come from local government share of national taxes (personal income
tax 56% and land tax 100%) and local taxes. Tax revenues have been rising from 46% of total revenues on 2003 to 58% of total revenues on 2007 and decreased to 54% of total revenues on 2008.
Local Government Revenues 2003--2008 (thousand EUR)
900000
National and local taxes
800000
Income from economical activities and
property
Equalization fond
700000
600000
500000
Block grant from State Budget
400000
Earmarked grants for current
expenditures from State Budget
Investment grants from State Budget
300000
200000
Transfers from foundations and NGO-s
100000
Sale of property
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Other revenues
Figure 1: Local Government Revenues
2003—2008 (source: Ministry of Finance,
www.fin.ee)
Revenues from municipal assets derive from sale of assets and other revenues from assets. Other revenues from assets are interests, fine of delay, rent, lease, owner revenues and revenues from logging
and use mineral resources. From the chart below (Figure 2) can be seen, that sale of property constitutes in average 4.07% of total revenues and other revenues constitute in average 3.37% of total revenues in period 2003—2008. It can also be seen that while proportion of sale of property differs from
8.57% of total revenues on 2006 to 0.94% of total revenues on 2008, then other revenues have been
rather stable around 4.95% on 2003 and 2.50% on 2004 or slightly declining. It should be taken into
account that peek of sale of property on 2006 might be related to rural municipality and city council
elections at the end of October 2005 and need to acquire additional funds for fulfilment of elections
promises (council elections were followed by elections of parliament (Riigikogu) in March 2007).
10(18)
Sale of Property and Other Revenues 2003--2008
9
% of total revenues
8
7
6
5
Sale of property
4
Other revenues
3
2
1
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 2: Sale of Property and Other Revenues 2003—2008 (source: Ministry of Finance, www.fin.ee)
Other assets related revenues are fees for use of municipal facilities and redemptions of school and
childcare institutions places for pupils and children who have dwelling place in territory of other municipality. According to § 30(3) of LGOA a rural municipality or city government shall establish the
prices of services provided by rural municipality or city agencies. These prices include fees and
charges for use of sports hall or gym, rooms of schools, kindergartens or other building either for private or public events, using place in nursing house or day care centres et alia. Usually all such fees
and charges related to use of rooms and buildings are couched in revenues of services in budget and
accounting. Still expenses of those revenues are shown as investments or assets management expenses. By the economic merit these revenues should be considered revenues from assets.
According to § 27 of Pre-school Child Care Institutions Act a child care institution shall be financed
from the state budget and rural municipality or city budget funds, out of amounts covered by parents
and donations. The cost of catering for children at a child care institution and part of management,
remuneration and teaching aids costs shall be covered by the parents. Important enactment is § 27(6)
of the Pre-school Child Care Institutions Act, which regulates obligation of other municipal units to
cover cost of child, who's dwelling place is its territory. According to § 27(6) of Pre-school Child
Care Institutions Act other rural municipalities or cities shall fully participate in covering the management costs, remuneration for staff, social tax and costs of teaching aids at a child care institution
which are to be covered from the rural municipality or city budget in proportion to the number of
children who permanently reside in their administrative territory and attend the child care institution.
Similar regulation of other municipal units' obligation to compensate expenses for students, whose
dwelling place is in other municipality, applies to municipal schools. According to § § 441
of the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act other rural municipalities or cities shall fully
participate in covering the operating expenses of a municipal school in proportion to the number of
students attending the school who permanently reside in their administrative territories. Operating
expenses consist of: 1) staff expenditure; 2) management expenses; 3) the acquisition costs of teaching aids. A rural municipality or city government shall approve the calculated cost of the operating
expenses of a student place per student for each budgetary year. Other rural municipalities and cities
shall cover the operating expenses of municipal schools on the basis of invoices submitted by the corresponding rural municipality or city government. Corresponding rural municipalities and cities shall
agree on the procedure for their participation in covering the operating costs of municipal schools. If
no agreement is reached, other rural municipalities and cities shall submit a claim into administration
court. Precise rules are set by regulation No 330 of Government of the Republic 20.10.2001 "Rules
11(18)
of Participation in Covering of Expenses of Municipal Schools". If other rural municipalities and cities do not participate in covering the operating costs of a municipal school, the county governor has
the right to propose to the Government of the Republic that the transfers made from the state budget
to such rural municipality or city budgets be reduced by an amount equal to the operating costs which
have not been covered in order to compensate, out of such funds, for that part of the operating costs
of the municipal school which has not been covered.
Local governments do not provide housing service in Estonia. Most of dwellings were returned or
privatised during property reform in 1990-ties and beginning of 20-th century. According to Dwelling Act and Social Welfare Act local governments should own two kinds of dwellings. Municipal
apartments should be used for housing of people and earning reasonable revenues for local government. Social apartments should be leased for social housing (according to § 14(1) of the Social Welfare Act local government authorities are required to provide dwelling for persons or families who
are unable or incapable of securing housing for themselves or their families and to create, if necessary, the opportunity to lease social housing). In practice most of apartments were privatised and
most of municipalities are in shortage with providing dwelling even for people who are incapable of
securing housing for themselves of their family. Housing is not significant source of revenues for local governments.
2.2.5. Control and Supervision
Control and supervision over municipal assets are carried out by local government organs themselves, county governors and National Audit Office. Audit committee of the council and supervisory
control of the government are obligatory internal control methods. National Audit Office's and county governor's supervision are obligatory external control methods. In addition to these four methods
local governments can establish internal control and audit system.

4
Audit committee of the council of municipality. Pursuant to § 48 (1) of the Local Government Organization Act a council shall form an audit committee4 of not less than three members for the duration of its term of office. The audit committee is form mainly of politicians
and conducts mainly political control over the government of the municipality. The audit
committee shall monitor: 1) the conformity of the activities of the rural municipality or city
government with the regulations and resolutions of the council; 2) the accuracy of accounting
of rural municipality or city administrative agencies and agencies under the administration of
a rural municipality or city administrative agencies, and the purposeful use of rural municipality or city funds; 3) the timely collection and registration of revenue and the conformity of
expenditure with the rural municipality or city budget; 4) the performance of contracts entered into by the rural municipality or city; 5) the lawfulness and purposefulness of the activities of the rural municipality or city government and the administrative agencies thereof
(§ 48(3) of the Local Government Organization Act). The audit committee has no authority to
make binding decisions. The decision of the audit committee and audit report shall be sent to
the rural municipality or city government which shall take a position concerning the audit report and present it to the audit committee within ten days. To enable the passing of a resolution concerning application of the results of the audit, the audit committee shall submit the
documents specified above to the council, and annex the draft legislation of the council necessary to make the decision to the documents. (§ 48 (5) of the Local Government Organization Act) The audit committee shall present a report concerning its activities at least once a
year at a council session (§ 48 (7) of the Local Government Organization Act).
Audit committee is official translation for Estonian concept "revisjonikomisjon". The concept refers rather to board of
commissioners of revision – it is overall control of all activities of organisation. Therefore the term "audit committee"
might be in some context somewhat misleading. SP

12(18)
Supervisory control of the government of municipality. Supervisory control is control exercised by the government over the legality and purposefulness of the activities of rural municipality and city administrative agencies and of their officials, and of the agencies under the
administration of rural municipality and city administrative agencies and of their managers
(§ 661 (1) of the Local Government Organization Act). In the exercise of supervisory control,
the government has the right to: 1) issue a precept for the elimination of deficiencies in a legal
instrument or act; 2) suspend the performance of an act or the validity of a legal instrument;
and 3) invalidate a legal instrument (§ 661 (3) of the Local Government Organization Act).
The government shall invalidate a legal instrument or an act of the rural municipality or city
government administrative agency and of their official, and of the manager of an agency under the administration of a rural municipality or city administrative agency on the grounds of
illegality or lack of purposefulness if the legal instrument or act is in conflict with law or
clearly not in conformity with the principles of the local government, or if it causes an unreasonable use of the assets or budget funds of the rural municipality or city (§ 661 (6) and (7) of
the Local Government Organization Act). The decisions of supervisory control of the government of municipality are legally binding and have direct legal effect.

Supervision of county governor. According to § 85 (1) of the Government of the Republic
Act a county governor has the right to exercise supervision over the legality of legislation of
specific application of local governments and local government councils of the given county
and, in the cases and to the extent provided by law, also over the legality and purposefulness
of the use of state assets in the use or control of local governments. This means that county
governor has the authority to a) exercise supervision of legality of decisions and other specific
applications of municipal organs considering possession, use and disposal of municipal assets
and use of state assets given into possession of local government unit; and b) control the legality and purposefulness of actual use of state assets in the use of control of local governments. The scope of authority of county governor depends on the object of supervision. If a
county governor finds that legislation of specific application of a local government council or
government is, in full or in part, in conflict with the Constitution, a law or other legislation issued pursuant to law, he or she may submit a proposal in writing to bring the legislation of
specific application or a provision thereof into conformity with the Constitution, the law or
other legislation within fifteen days. If the council or government does not or refuses to bring
the legislation of specific application or a provision thereof into conformity with the Constitution, a law or other legislation within fifteen days after receipt of the written proposal of the
county governor, the county governor shall file a protest with an administrative court. (§ 85
(4) of the Government of the Republic Act) If the county governor discovers that the local
government has possessed, used or disposed of state assets unlawfully or non-purposefully, he
or she shall file a report with the National Audit Office (§ 28(6) of the Government of the Republic Act). In neither case county governor is not entitled to make binding decision on either
nullification of legislation of specific application on municipal or state assets, nor make a prescription to cancel or changes illegal actions with state assets.

Supervision of National Audit Office. The main function of the National Audit Office is to
exercise economic control (audit). Pursuant to § 6(2) of the State Audit Office Act in the
course of an audit, the National Audit Office may assess internal control, financial management, financial accounting and financial statements of the audited entity; the legality of the
economic activities, including economic transactions of the audited entity; the performance of
the audited entity with regard to its management, organisation and activities; and the reliability of the information technology systems of the audited entity. The scope of economic control depends on subject and object of the control. As local governments are autonomous organisations, the control over local governments' assets management is limited to supervision
of legality of administrative decisions and actions (see also Art 8. 2 of the European Charter
of Local Self-Government). This restriction does not apply to state assets that are given into
possession and use of local governments. Pursuant to § 7 (2) 2) of the State Audit Office Act
13(18)
the National Audit Office may assess internal control, financial management, financial accounting and financial statements of the audited entity; the legality of the economic activities,
including economic transactions of the audited entity; and the reliability of the information
technology systems of the audited entity on possession, use and disposal of municipal assets.
The same applies to non-profit organisations and foundations whose member or founder local
government unit is. In case of state assets possessed or used by local government, pursuant to
§ 7 (21) of the State Audit Office Act the office can in addition to aforementioned control the
performance of the audited entity with regard to its management, organisation and activities
and assess economy, efficiency and effectiveness of use of immovable and movable property
of the state transferred into local government unit's possession, allocations for specific purposes and subsidies granted from the state budget, and funds allocated for the performance of
state functions.
2.3. Asset classification
There is no specific public assets classification. In 1990-ties the Law of Property Act divided things
into three categories – private things, public things and general things. Private things were things that
could be in a commercial turnover. Public things were territorial and inland waters, ponds, roads,
streets, parks, bridges and other such constructions that were in public use and ownership of state or
legal person in public law. General things were offing, air, ground water and other such things that by
the merit could not be in commercial turnover. On 2002 this division was rejected and content of
"object" was defined as any object that could technically be object of civil (or commercial) turnover.
Estonian private law discriminates between objects and things. Objects are things, rights, and other
benefits which can be the object of a right (§ 48 of the General Part of the Civil Code Act (GPCCA).
A thing is a corporal object (§ 49(1) of the GPCCA). In the cases provided by law, provisions concerning things apply to rights (§ 49(2) of the GPCCA). These cases are real rights (ownership and
restricted real rights: servitudes, real encumbrances, right of superficies, right of pre-emption and
right of security), but special statutory acts can give a status of thing to other rights (for example rent,
lease). Things are divided into movables and immovable. An immovable is a delimited part of land
(plot of land) (§ 50 (1) of the GPCCA). Things which are not immovable are movables (§ 50 (2) of
the GPCCA). For the purpose of civil law movables are divided into fungibles and non-fungibles
things and consumable and non-consumable things.
In Estonian there is only one term for both "assets" and "property" and it has made some confusion if
Estonian legal acts are translated to English. As a legal term, "property" means a set of monetarily
appraisable rights and obligations belonging to a person unless otherwise provided by law (§ 66 of
the GPCCA). According to § 5 (1) of the Commercial Code all things, rights and obligations which
are or should, by their nature, be designated for the activities of the company comprise special form
of property call "enterprise". The term "assets" is defined in § 3 cause 1) of the Accounting Act as "a
monetarily measurable object or right belonging to an accounting entity". Until 2002 state and local
government agencies were considered to be separate accounting entities and term "assets" was therefore define as "resources controlled by an accounting entity". From 2002 state as legal person in public law and local government units as persons in public law are as whole accounting entities (§ 2 (2)
of the Accounting Act). Therefore there is no difference in content and scope of terms "property" and
"assets" from the perspective of local government.
3. Case study
3.1. Framework and Methodology
Summing up thorough study on municipal fiscal reforms in Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, and
Hungary George M. Guess writes: "After transition, local governments received more powers via as-
14(18)
signment of authority. But insufficient funding often meant that mayors and local administrators
could in fact affect few programs by themselves. Their authority was diluted despite the fact that they
were technically responsible. This meant that the public could complain and kick out elected officials
that had little power to change anything without the support of higher tier governments."
(Guess, G. M. 2007:4) It has been quite the same situation in Estonia – lack of funds or at least disproportion between municipal tasks and funds has been characteristic to local self-government settling. Central government provides certain legal framework for municipal taxation, equalization
mechanisms and block grants, but also often expects local self-government units to raise revenues by
themselves. As tax and charges issues are highly regulated by central government, local selfgovernment units have to find other means of revenues or financing.
According to Kaganova, O. et alia "municipalities usually have much more freedom of choice over
their handling of municipal assets and liabilities than they do of municipal revenues. One of the ironies of municipal finance in developing countries is that while central governments often impose rigorous limitations on the right of local governments to establish their own taxes, set their own tax
rates, or borrow from the credit market, they rarely place any limitations on the rights of local governments to own, operate, acquire, or dispose of discretionary assets not critical to public service
delivery. In a number of countries, municipal governments have no choice about the taxes they can
levy, and almost no choice about the tax rates they can establish. If these municipalities want to generate discretionary income, they have little choice but to try to do so through asset management."
(Kaganova, O. et. al. 1999:4) From this perspective the goals of public real property asset management are divided into traditional and non-traditional type. The traditional goal is supplying the right
quantity of property for publicly provided goods and services at least cost compared with all alternative feasible arrangements including private sector provision. The non-traditional goals are supporting local economic development and obtaining governmental revenues from alternative sources. (Kaganova, O. et. al. 1999:ii) In their study Kaganova et al. write: "0fficials usually believe that municipal property represents a potential source of local public wealth and income [--]. The central government transfers are considered by local governments as unpredictable and unreliable. The fear of
losing a source of local revenue by privatizing real estate is grounded in the fact that property taxation is highly centralized in most countries in transition, and municipal governments have little control over their revenues from land and property taxes." (Kaganova, O. et. al. 1999:34) The report
shows that proper asset management can provide considerable source of revenues to local selfgovernment unit and contribute to local self-government autonomy from central government.
For the purpose of better asset management assets are divided into three categories (the Denver Portfolio Classification Model, see also Table 1). In case of governmental use assets financial goals
should be achieved by increasing the efficient use of facilities, minimizing operating costs and locating government offices in functional areas. The asset management goals for social use assets can be
achieved by presenting true expenses and generating program alternatives to reduce the subsidy. For
surplus property goals can be achieved by leasing or privatizing surplus property and reducing
maintenance costs. (Kaganova, O. et. al. 1999:45—48)
Table 1: The Denver Portfolio Classification Model (Source: Kaganova, O. et. al.
1999:28 and 45)
Category
Financial Goals
Governmental use
Maximize efficiency,
Minimize costs
Quantify and minimize the
subsidy
Maximize financial returns
Social use
Surplus property
Examples of Activity of
Property
City hall, police stations,
local public hospitals, etc.
Public housing, parks, etc.
Investment property, remnants from various sources
Financial Information Needs
Expenses, internal rent,
market value
Expenses, subsidy, market
value
Expenses, revenues, market
value
15(18)
3.2. Overview of the Municipality
The rural municipality of Saku was founded in 1866, and reestablished on the 16.01.1992. The community is situated in Harju County, bordered to the north by Tallinn, to the south by Rapla county
and Kohila rural municipality, to the east by the municipalities of Kiili and Kose, and to the west by
Saue rural municipality. The territory of the municipality is 171 km2. The population of the municipality is 8423 inhabitants (01.01.2008) and density is 49 people/km2. The centre of the community is
the town of Saku (4712 inhabitants). Three quarters of the population inhabit the three towns of the
community Saku, Kiisa, and Kurtna. The remainder of inhabitants lives in the smaller villages. There
are 37897 m of streets and 93953 m of roads in rural municipality. All public transportation is based
on private capital assets and is licensed by municipality.
The primary educational facility in rural municipality of Saku is Secondary School of Saku with 913
pupils on 2008. There is also joint facility of pre-school institution and elementary school in Kurna
with 150 children and separate schoolhouse in Kajamaa with 30 pupils (including 12 pupils on individual study program). There are also two pre-school child care institutions in Saku – kindergarten
"Päikesekild" for 249 children and "Terake" for 124 children. For hobby education there is music
school of Saku for 149 pupils. School transportation is organised and financed by rural municipality.
In addition to educational institutions there are also following agencies administrated by Government
of Rural Municipality of Saku: hobby centre of Saku, civic centre of Kiisa, library of Saku, library of
Kiisa and sport centre of Saku that provides possibilities for spending free time, and daily care centre
of Saku for providing daily social care services for elderly people. Rural municipality supports tourism and was announced most tourism-friendly municipality in Northern Estonia on 2007 (mainly for
project of children park "Vebu-Tembu maa", annual festival and annual cycling competition).
Based on decision No 45 of Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 08.08.1996 there is limited liability company AS Saku Maja (in English Ltd House of Saku) founded. All stock of AS Saku Maja belong to rural municipality of Saku. Main activities of AS Saku Maja are providing public heating,
public water supply, and public sewage, administration of municipal dwellings and management private apartment buildings, and management of municipal real property. AS Saku Maja engages also in
resale of electric energy (electric energy is produced by AS Eesti Energia, whose 100% of stock belongs to the state) and network operation service of electric energy. AS Saku Maja provides services
mainly to municipality, its agencies and inhabitants of rural municipality of Saku. Turnover of sale of
services was 2775359 EUR (that is 710.10% of revenues of sale of good and services by the rest of
municipal agencies). Average staff of AS Saku was 65 people and staff costs were 621098 EUR (that
is 20 % of staff costs of all municipal agencies).
There are 299 people altogether working in municipal agencies. 35 of them are officials of bureau of
government of municipality, 26 of them are employees of bureau of government of municipality, 136
of them are teachers, and others are employees of other municipal agencies. Staff cost (taxes included) was 3061183 EUR.
3.3. Rules of Assets Management
There are no statutory provisions on municipal assets management. According to § 22(1)6) and 34(2)
of LGOA the establishment of the procedure for the administration of the rural municipality or city
assets is within the exclusive competence of a municipal or city council. Rules of possession, use and
disposal of assets of rural municipality of Saku are laid down by regulation No 24 of Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 11.12.2003 (hereafter: Rules). Management of municipal assets is execution
of the right of ownership of property of rural municipality of Saku (§ 4 (1) of the Rules). Administrators of municipal assets are Council of Rural Municipality of Saku (hereafter: the council) and Government of Rural Municipality of Saku (hereafter: the government) and agencies administrated by the
16(18)
government (§ 4 (2) of the Rules). Agencies administrated by the government are schools, kindergartens, day care centres, nursing houses, libraries and other such agencies without authority to implement executive power. User of municipal assets can be a third person (§ 4 (3) of the Rules). Municipal assets can be transferred from one administrator of municipal assets to another on grounds of decision of the government (§ 5 (1) of the Rules). Assets with usual monetary value of less than
320 EUR can be transferred based on administrative contract of administrators of municipal assets
(§ 5 (2) of the Rules). Transfer of immovables of municipality from one administrator of municipal
assets to another is decided by the council (§ 5 (3) of the Rules). Allotment of municipal assets is decided on grounds of the need for fulfilling public tasks of the agency by 1) the council, if the usual
market value exceeds 100 000 EEK (6410 EUR); 2) the government, if the usual market value is between 10 000—100 000 EEK (641—6410 EUR); or 3) head of the government, if the usual market
value is less than 10 000 EEK (641 EUR) (§ 5 (7) of the Rules).
Municipal assets can be acquired by 1) purchase; 2) transferred by state without charge; 3) accepting
the succession; 4) accepting of a gift; 5) occupation of ownerless building; 6) other ways enacted by
law (§ 7 (1) of the Rules). Acquisition of municipal assets is decided by 1) the council, if assets are
immovables or are movable, which usual market value exceeds 6410 EUR and purchase has not been
prescribed in annual budget; 2) the government, if usual market value is between 641—6410 EUR
and purchase has not been prescribed in annual budget; 3) head of the government, if the usual market value is less than 641 EUR and purchase has not been prescribed in annual budget; 4) agency
administrated by the government, if municipal assets have been purchased (§ 7 (3) of the Rules). Execution of pre-emption and acceptance of succession is decided by the council (§ 7 (5) and (7) of the
Rules). Purchased assets are taken inventory in acquisition costs, but if assets are transferred to local
government without charge. Assets, which are transferred to local government without a charge, are
taken inventory in usual market costs (§ 7 (11) of the Rules).
Use of municipal assets is consumption of beneficial properties of assets and execution of servitude
or encumber, which is set in benefit of local government (§ 8 (1) of the Rules). Municipal assets are
used for (§ 8 (2) of the Rules):
1) public purpose. Public things in municipal ownership are things, which by the merit are used
for public purposes and accessible to everyone (local roads, streets, squares, parks, bathing sites and
other) and use of which is not restricted to private use by legislation of state or municipality (§ 9 (1)
of the Rules). The council is entitled to lay down conditions of use of public things (§ 9 (2) of the
Rules). If different order or restrictions are laid down about use of public things, there have to be
clear notice about it has to be given (§ 9 (3) of the Rules);
2) government of municipality. Assets used for government of municipality are assets, which are
needed for the council, the government or agencies administrated by the government for implementation of statutory obligations and duties (§ 10 (1) of the Rules). If assets are not any more needed or
are temporally not used for implementation of statutory obligations and duties then the administrator
of municipal assets is obliged to the government about it in written within 1 month since the decision
about assets is made. Further use of municipal assets is decides by the government (§ 10 (2) of the
Rules);
3) earning of profit. Assets, which are not used for public purpose or government of municipality
and have not been decided to be sold, are used for earning of profit (§ 11 (1) of the Rules). For erarning profit assets can be given to usufruct, rented out or leased or allocated into enterprise (§ 11 (2) of
the Rules).
17(18)
4. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of assets management in local government. In this
analyze author focused on legal aspects of assets management and revenues collected from assets.
Estonian constitutional order divided public tasks into local issues and national duties. Constitution
also provided different financing scheme for those tasks. Local government enjoyed autonomous status under the Constitution. Asset management was considered as one matter of local government organisational autonomy and therefore left for local governments themselves to regulate. As also
brought out by O. Kaganova at al. 1999 local governments also in Estonia have great discretion on
deciding on revenues collected from assets, while the same time issuing taxes and charges in public
law is limited to rule of law and statutory regulation. Still only minor part of local government revenues is derived form sale and other revenues from assets. Most of local government assets are used
either for public purpose or government of the municipality.
5. References
O. Kaganova et al. (1999) "Municipal real property asset management: An overview of world
experience, issues, financial implications and housing",
Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act
Constitution of the Republic of Estonia
Dwelling Act
European Charter of Local Self-Government
General Principles of the Civil Code Act
Government of the Republic Act
Land Reform Act
Law of Property Act
Law of Property Act Implementation Act
Law of Succession Act
Local Government Organization Act
Local Self-Government Foundations Act of SSR of Estonia
Pre-school Child Care Institutions Act
Principles of Ownership Reform Act
Roads Act
Social Welfare Act
State Assets Act
State Audit Office Act
Ministry of Finance (2003) Monthly Report of Implementation of Rural Municipalities and City
Budgets on 2003. – published www.fin.ee;
Ministry of Finance (2004) Monthly Report of Implementation of Rural Municipalities and City
Budgets on 2004. – published www.fin.ee;
Ministry of Finance (2005) Monthly Report of Implementation of Rural Municipalities and City
Budgets on 2005. – published www.fin.ee;
Ministry of Finance (2006) Monthly Report of Implementation of Rural Municipalities and City
Budgets on 2006. – published www.fin.ee;
Ministry of Finance (2007) Monthly Report of Implementation of Rural Municipalities and City
Budgets on 2007. – published www.fin.ee;
Ministry of Finance (2008) Monthly Report of Implementation of Rural Municipalities and City
Budgets on 2008. – published www.fin.ee;
Government of the Republic 08.08.1996 regulation No 211 "Determination of Procedure of Occupation of Ownerless Structures"
18(18)
Government of the Republic 20.10.2001 regulation No 330 "Rules of Participation in Covering
of Expenses of Municipal Schools".
Government of the Republic 02.06.2006 regulation No 133 "Procedure for transfer of land into
municipal ownership".
Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 11.12.2003 regulation No 24 "Rules of Possession, Use
and Disposal of Municipal Assets";
Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 17.03.2005 regulation No 7 "Adaption of Budget of Rural Municipality of Saku for 2005";
Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 08.06.2006 regulation No 56 "Acceptation of Report of
Implementation of Budget for 2005"
Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 19.01.2007 regulation No 1 "Budget of Rural Municipality of Saku for 2007";
Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 17.01.2008 regulation No 3 "Adaption of Budget of Rural Municipality of Saku for 2008";
Council of Rural Municipality of Saku 12.03.2009 regulation No 3 "Adaption of Budget of Rural Municipality of Saku for 2009";
National Audit Office 24.08.2004 auditing report No 2-5/04/100