Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A Met Council Reform Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2016 AGENDA #: 9A PREPARED BY: FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER PRESENTED BY: FRANK BOYLES AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE REFORM DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to solicit the City Council positions regarding reform of the Metropolitan Council Government Structure. History In 1967 the metropolitan Council was formed by the state legislature. Its role was to address inadequately treated wastewater, a failing private bus company, development of sensitive natural areas, and fiscal disparities that left some communities unable to provide essential services and intensified competition for development. This regional body was intended to address issues which transcend the boundaries of nearly 300 local governments (7 counties, 188 cities and townships, and 22 special purpose districts). The final bill creating the Metropolitan Council was a compromise creating a council appointed by the governor from geographic districts with planning and coordinating powers. Since its inception the powers of the Metropolitan Council have expanded considerably. They have become the primary transit operator. They have become the operator for the wastewater treatment for the metropolitan area. Their budget has grown to in excess of $400 million annually. The 17 member Metropolitan Council is served by a staff of approximately 3,700 employees. The Thrive MSP plan is one of the most aggressive efforts by the Metropolitan Council to implement their policies and plans using the compressive planning statutes as their leverage. Current Circumstances Much like cities, the rights, responsibilities, processes and power of the Metropolitan Council and set forth the State Statute and are therefore legally enforceable. Some believe the Metropolitan Council should be abolished. Attempts in this direction have met with failure and little widespread support. 2 However there continue to be concerns about the Metropolitan Council. Some of those concerns are set forth below:  They have exceeded their statutory authority in numerous areas and most notably with Thrive MPS.  The council itself is an appointed body only accountable to the governor.  The appointed council annually approves budgets and tax levies with no electoral accountability.  The staff has the real power and councilmembers are figureheads.  The council is more interested in pursuing its policies than serving the needs of the metropolitan area. Various groups and organizations in the metropolitan area have positions intended to ameliorate the concerns outlined above. Leaders of a coalition of four suburban counties have developed materials along this line for the coming legislative session. They are interested in determining if the City Council concurs with their objectives. Rather than restate the suburban county position, I have included the following documents for City Council review.  Letter from to the Mayor and Council dated February 8, 2016  Comparison of Planning Agencies around the nation.  FAQs about Metropolitan Council  Template Resolution supporting principles from reform of the Metropolitan Council. Other groups believe in the Metropolitan Council reform but are taking a different tack. For example, Metro Cities which the city is a member of has numerous policies regarding the Metropolitan Council. Attached is their policy regarding regional governance structure. Legislators themselves have various perspectives on Metropolitan Council reform. Representative Albright has introduced H.F. 2467 (copy attached). The key points in Albright’s bill are:  Creation of staggered terms.  Governor appoints eight members plus chair.  Governor appoints nominated committee of seven metropolitan cities at least three of which must be locally elected persons.  The other seven members are appointed directly by each county from sitting county commissioners. Conclusion The City Council should determine which of the reform measures are supported. To support their legislative efforts, the suburban counties are asking city councils to adopt a resolution as proposed or as amended. ISSUES: Staggered Terms The only metropolitan governance structure proposal which has widespread support is staggered terms. The theory is that the work of the council is complex enough that only a subset of council members should 3 turn over in any year rather than all of them with a new governor. The existing process is also believed to increases council dependence upon the staff. Elected or Appointed Officials The suburban counties believe elected officials should only serve on the council but do not specify whether county, local or other. Metro Cities believe that representatives should have the ability to work with local governments collaboratively with our reference to their elected or appointed status. Representative Albright’s bill provides that seven members of the Metropolitan Council would be elected county commissioners. There is no specific appointment requirement for local officials. This provision is consistent with the third tenant of the Suburban Government Platform. Regional Representative and Voting by Population The Metro Cities policy does not address this. Representative Albright’s bill does to some extent by requiring a representative from each metro county. Voting is not based upon population though. Metropolitan Counties should directly appoint their own representatives. The Metro Cities policy does not address this. The Representative Albright bill does. Metropolitan cities should directly control the appointed process for city representatives. Neither the Metro Cities nor the Representative Albright’s bill address this. Virtually all cities in the metropolitan area are being asked to take a position on the Metropolitan Governance Structure issues. Savage has discussed to topic and it is not clear whether they will approve the resolution supplied by the four suburban counties, support the Metro Cities Policy position or some admixture of both. Of course taking no position is an option as well. The City Council may wish to address all, some or none of these issues. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and second to adopt a resolution supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council as proposed by the Suburban Counties or with amendments. 2. Take no action on this request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: As determined by the City Council. 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 16-XXX A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT PRICNIPLES FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis - St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropol itan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; an d WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Prior Lake supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; 2. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; 2 3. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; 4. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; 5. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; 6. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ______________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager February 8, 2016 Dear Mayor/Councilmember: We are part of a coalition of County and City leaders from the suburban metropolitan area who have become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, especially as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an updated Metropolitan Council governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. We seek your support for the attached principles for reform that would increase local participation and collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region. We ask that you adopt the attached resolution calling for substantive change to the Council. Structure Limits Local Representation Metropolitan Council members are non-elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. We believe the Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation and representation from other local elected officials. This call for reform echoes the 2011 conclusion of the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation report Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/transit.pdf. Substantial Changes In Role of Council Since 1967 The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for the Twin Cities area. However, at the same time the Council’s management of growth, and in particular its coordination of regional services has changed dramatically. The Council’s scope has increased, but not its level of accountability to the local governments and citizens of the metropolitan-area. Many citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present Metropolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the attached resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity meet with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Gary Shelton for more information or to schedule a presentation to your Council or Board. We look forward to working with you in this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity. Please return the adopted resolution to Scott County, Attn: Gary Shelton, 200 West 4th Avenue, Shakopee, MN 55379 by Tuesday, March 8, 2016; or, as soon thereafter as practical. Sincerely, Jon Ulrich Michael Beard Scott County Commissioner Scott County Commissioner 3 Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region’s growth and to provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of regional collaboration. However, the Council’s management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. The Council’s recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs--- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, counseling, public health, nutrition and family “home visiting” services, workforce and specialized housing programs and many other anti-poverty and human services. In these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non-elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder. The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan-area are represented is to have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council--individuals that do not serve exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines to serve as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council “more directly accountable to its public1.” Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area’s continued success. However, in order for a regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. 1 Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 Metropolitan Governance Reform Twin Cities’ Local Government Coalition -Statement of Objectives- A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition’s objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are: 1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance—as represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 2. To align local government interests behind a reform effort—through formation of a broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties —and a common position. 3. To be prepared for any efforts—legislative and otherwise—to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition’s Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. 2 Twin Cities’ Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group’s core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions. It should not operate as a state agency—as it does in its current form—answerable to only one person, the Governor. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure San Diego Association of Governments The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various state and federal agencies and other organizations. Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Oakland CA) The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local organizations. The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Houston-Galveston Area Council The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the Independent School Districts. The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some cities and counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure North Central Texas Council of Governments The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. The metro-area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are no county elected officials- counties are represented by judges). There are no citizen members. Boston Region MPO The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, 8 representatives from other governments and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government. The elected officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county representatives. There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also no citizen members. Atlanta Regional Commission The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the 23 public officials. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members selected by local elected officials. Puget Sound Regional Council The Council has a general assembly consisting of all elected officials from all member jurisdictions. The Assembly establishes the budget and elects representatives to the Executive Board. The Executive Board consists of 30 elected officials and 2 representatives from the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are selected by local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state government. The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen members. Maricopa Association of Governments The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of a citizen organization. The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc. from metro towns, cities, and reservations. There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission. Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at-large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at-large members. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission The Board consists of 16 state government appointees, 24 local government elected officials and staff, and 2 attorneys. as well as a number of non-voting members. There are 4 representatives from the PA Department of Transportation and 3 from the NJ Department of Transportation. There are also 3 representatives from the PA Governor's Policy Office, 1 other PA Governor's appointee, 3 from the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and 2 appointees from the NJ Governor. Summary: The majority of voting members are either local elected officials or local government staff members. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure New York Metropolitan Transportation Council The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state representative, and 7 non-voting members from various federal and state agencies. The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of Transportation, and Department of City Planning. The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives from city government. There are no citizen members. Baltimore Regional Transportation Board The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state departments (3 non-voting). A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning The Board consists of appointments from each of the metro counties- the members are a combination of elected officials and representatives of nonprofits and private industry. There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the Regional Transportation Authority. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board. Southern California Association of Governments The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota Name Governance Structure Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Superior. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and Moorhead Planning Commissions. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. La Crosse Area Planning Committee The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. 1 FREQUENTLY A SKED QUESTIONS: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL R EFORM PRINCIPLES 1) Why now? Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been an issue on the minds of many local governments for many years. However, political realities have created obstacles that thwarted many previous attempts at reform. The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties who were unhappy with aspects of the plan. However, our call for change is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. Councilmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one: the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 2) Who makes up the coalition? The coalition originated with officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited certain city officials with interest in reform to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together this group developed a mutually-agreed-upon set of principles for reform. 3) You’re asking cities to adopt these principles, knowing that they go against the position of Metro Cities. Doesn’t this undermine the work of the Metro Cities organization? We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role in advocating for city interests, and we did invite them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of our positions. We had hoped to work together toward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the organization changes. However, in the meantime we are aware of many cities with positions on Metropolitan Council reform that contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that those cities should have their voices heard in the Legislature. 2 4) What are the next steps? These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area, and we hope to have as many as possible adopt these principles. We are happy to discuss the principles, along with our reasons for wanting reform, with any Board or Council in the area. During the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to illustrate how important reform is to local governments in the metro-area, and we will work with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles. 5) How do other cities do it? Every other major metropolitan area’s regional planning organization (see Attachment B), as well as every other regional planning organization in Minnesota, is made up of a majority of local elected officials. 6) Is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council? Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non- elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation from local elected officials. 7) Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan? No. Many cities and counties were unhappy with aspects of the Council’s plan. However, our call for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home to many what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 8) Is there other support for this? Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report recommending that the Metropolitan Council be composed of a majority elected officials, citing the Council’s “limited credibility” due to a governance structure that limits accountability. 3 The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to reform the Council so that a “majority of council members shall be locally elected city and county officials.” Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation and transit funding, have encouraged reform of the Council to make it “more directly accountable to its public.” 9) Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)? No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan Council, including the authority to levy taxes, is unique. None of the proposed principles diminish Council authority in any way, and will not transform the Council into a COG. 10) Do you oppose the Governor? No. This is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a Republican or a Democrat. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the Council can shift depending on who is in power. The Council should represent the interests of the region, not a single individual. 11) Is this about the suburbs complaining? No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council. 12) Is the Met Council accountable to their constituents? No. Although the Met Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is not accountable to those residents and is instead solely accountable to the Governor, an individual that over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support from metro-area voters. 4 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES: 13) Aren’t local elected officials too busy to serve on the Council? There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full-time jobs. Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every other large city in the country. If these principles are enacted it will be part of cities and counties’ role to ensure that those appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment. 14) Isn’t it a conflict of interest to ask an official elected by one specific city or county to represent an entire region? Local elected officials already serve in many capacities where they must consider regional interests. The Council’s Transportation Advisory Board, for example, which recommends allocation of transportation and transit funding throughout the region, is made up of majority of local elected officials. The Counties Transit Improvement Board and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Board are two other examples where local elected officials serve and represent the interests of an entire region. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city/county, rather than the specific district that elected them. 15) What happens if a local elected official leaves office in the middle of his/her Metropolitan Council appointment? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. These issues will be considered as a plan develops. 16) What about the criticisms of the role of the Council? These principles don’t address any of that. True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council is accountable to its metropolitan constituency we can consider the role that it should play in the region’s future. 17) You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should represent all citizens in the area, without allowing the large urban core to drive all decision making. 01/25/16 REVISOR LCB/IL 16-5471 This Document can be made available in alternative formats upon request State of Minnesota HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH SESSION H. F. No. 2467 01/29/2016 Authored by Albright,Hornstein and Pugh The bill was referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Elections Policy 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to the Metropolitan Council;modifying membership and terms of the 1.3 Metropolitan Council;amending Minnesota Statutes 2014,section 473.123. 1.4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.5 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2014,section 473.123, is amended to read: 1.6 473.123 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. 1.7 Subdivision 1. Creation. A Metropolitan Council with jurisdiction in the 1.8 metropolitan area is established as a public corporation and political subdivision of the 1.9 state. It shall be under the supervision and control of 17 members,all of whom shall be 1.10 residents of the metropolitan area. 1.11 Subd. 2a. Terms. Following each apportionment of council districts,as provided 1.12 under subdivision 3a,council members must be appointed from newly drawn districts as 1.13 provided in subdivision 3a. Each council mcmbcr,othcr than the chair,must_esresin`tire 1.14 -.. - - 1.15 council. The terms of members - .: - - - -- • -- are staggered as follows: 1.16 members representing even-numbered districts have terms ending the first Monday in 1.17 January of the year ending in the numeral "7";and members representing odd-numbered 1.18 districts have terms ending the first Monday in January of the year ending in the numeral 1.19 "5."Thereafter,the term of each member is four years,with terms ending the first Monday 1.20 in January,except that all terms expire on the effective date of the next apportionment. 1.21 ' ----- :• -- -- : -- - -,-• • - - - -: . A member shall continue to serve the 1.22 member's district until a successor is appointed and qualified;except that,following each 1.23 apportionment,the member shall continue to serve at large until the governor appoints-1-6 1.24 eight council members,one from each of the newly drawn council districts as provided Section 1.1 01/25/16 REVISOR LCB/IL 16-5471 2.1 under subdivision 3a,to serve terms as provided under this section. The appointment to 2.2 the council must be made by the first Monday in March of the year in which the term ends. 2.3 Subd. 3. Membership Members from districts; appointment; qualifications. 2.4 (a)Sixteen Eight members must be appointed by the governor from districts defined by 2.5 this section. Each council member must reside in the council district represented. Each 2.6 council district must be represented by one member of the council. 2.7 b)In addition to the notice required by section 15.0597, subdivision 4,notice of 2.8 vacancies and expiration of terms must be published in newspapers of general circulation 2.9 in the metropolitan area and the appropriate districts. The governing bodies of the statutory 2.10 and home rule charter cities,counties,and towns having territory in the district for which 2.11 a member is to be appointed must be notified in writing. The notices must describe the 2.12 appointments process and invite participation and recommendations on the appointment. 2.13 c) The governor shall create a nominating committee, composed of seven 2.14 metropolitan citizens appointed by the governor,to nominate persons for appointment to 2.15 the council from districts. Three of the committee members must be local elected officials. 2.16 Following the submission of applications as provided under section 15.0597,subdivision 2.17 5,the nominating committee shall conduct public meetings,after appropriate notice,to 2.18 accept statements from or on behalf of persons who have applied or been nominated for 2.19 appointment and to allow consultation with and secure the advice of the public and local 2.20 elected officials. The committee shall hold the meeting on each appointment in the district 2.21 or in a reasonably convenient and accessible location in the part of the metropolitan area 2.22 in which the district is located. The committee may consolidate meetings. Following 2.23 the meetings,the committee shall submit to the governor a list of nominees for each 2.24 appointment. The governor is not required to appoint from the list. 2.25 d)Before making an appointment,the governor shall consult with all members of 2.26 the legislature from the council district for which the member is to be appointed. 2.27 e)Appointments to the council are subject to the advice and consent of the senate as 2.28 provided in section 15.066. 2.29 f)Members of the council must be appointed to reflect fairly the various 2.30 demographic,political,and other interests in the metropolitan area and the districts. 2.31 g)Members of the council must be persons knowledgeable about urban and 2.32 metropolitan affairs. 2.33 h)Any vacancy in the office of a council member shall immediately be filled 2.34 for the unexpired term. In filling a vacancy,the governor may forgo the requirements 2.35 of paragraph(c) if the governor has made appointments in full compliance with the 2.36 requirements of this subdivision within the preceding 12 months. Section 1.2 01/25/16 REVISOR LCB/IL 16-5471 3.1 Subd. 3a. Redistricting. The legislature shall redraw the boundaries of the council 3.2 districts after each decennial federal census so that each district has substantially equal 3.3 population. Redistricting is effective in the year ending in the numeral"3."Within 60 days 3.4 after a redistricting plan takes effect,the governor shall appoint members from the newly 3.5 drawn districts to serve terms as provided under subdivision 2a. 3.6 Subd. 3e. District boundaries. (a)Metropolitan Council plan MC2013-1A,on 3.7 file with the Geographical Information Systems Office of the Legislative Coordinating 3.8 Commission and published on its Web site on April 9,2013, is adopted and constitutes 3.9 the redistricting plan required by subdivision 3a. The boundaries of each Metropolitan 3.10 Council district are as described in that plan. 3.11 b)For the purposes of establishing eight districts for appointments made after 3.12 January 1,2019,and until the 2023 redistricting takes effect,the council districts shall 3.13 consist of the following pairings of districts created by the MC2013-1A plan: 3.14 1)the first district consists of council districts 1 and 2; 3.15 2)the second district consists of council districts 3 and 4; 3.16 3)the third district consists of council districts 5 and 6; 3.17 4)the fourth district consists of council districts 7 and 8; 3.18 5)the fifth district consists of council districts 9 and 10; 3.19 6)the sixth district consists of council districts 11 and 12; 3.20 7)the seventh district consists of council districts 13 and 14;and 3.21 8)the eighth district consists of council districts 15 and 16. 3.22 This paragraph expires upon enactment of a new redistricting plan with eight council 3.23 districts. 3.24 Subd. 4. Chair;appointment,officers,selection; duties and compensation. (a) 3.25 The chair of the Metropolitan Council shall be appointed by the governor as the 17th 3.26 voting member thereof by and with the advice and consent of the senate to serve at the 3.27 pleasure of the governor to represent the metropolitan area at large. Senate confirmation 3.28 shall be as provided by section 15.066. 3.29 The chair of the Metropolitan Council shall, if present,preside at meetings of the 3.30 council,have the primary responsibility for meeting with local elected officials,serve as 3.31 the principal legislative liaison,present to the governor and the legislature,after council 3.32 approval,the council's plans for regional governance and operations,serve as the principal 3.33 spokesperson of the council,and perform other duties assigned by the council or by law. 3.34 b)The Metropolitan Council shall elect other officers as it deems necessary for 3.35 the conduct of its affairs for a one-year term. A secretary and treasurer need not be 3.36 members of the Metropolitan Council. Meeting times and places shall be fixed by the Section 1.3 01/25/16 REVISOR LCB/IL 16-5471 4.1 Metropolitan Council and special meetings may be called by a majority of the members 4.2 of the Metropolitan Council or by the chair. The chair and each Metropolitan Council 4.3 member shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses. 4.4 c)Each member of the council shall attend and participate in council meetings 4.5 and meet regularly with local elected officials and legislative members from the council 4.6 member's district. Each council member shall serve on at least one division committee for 4.7 transportation,environment, or community development. 4.8 d)In the performance of its duties the Metropolitan Council may adopt policies 4.9 and procedures governing its operation,establish committees,and,when specifically 4.10 authorized by law,make appointments to other governmental agencies and districts. 4.11 Subd. 4a. County commissioners as members. In addition to council members 4.12 appointed by the governor from districts,the county board of commissioners of each 4.13 metropolitan county shall appoint one elected county commissioner to serve on the 4.14 Metropolitan Council. The commissioner appointed serves at the pleasure of the 4.15 appointing county board. If the county commissioner appointed to the council ceases to be 4.16 an elected county commissioner,the council seat becomes vacant and the county board 4.17 shall appoint another commissioner to the office. 4.18 Subd. 8. General counsel. The council may appoint a general counsel to serve at 4.19 the pleasure of the council. 4.20 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for appointments to the Metropolitan 4.21 Council made on or after January 1,2019, and applies in the counties of Anoka,Carver, 4.22 Dakota,Hennepin,Ramsey, Scott,and Washington. Section 1.4 v O u Metropolitan Agencies c ,' v F, g The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and implementation around the regional development guide, policy plans, systems z statements, and local comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency, balance and Council adherence to its core mission and functions. These processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies and plans are released for comment and finalized. 4-6 Regional Governance Structure Metro Cities 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. Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees,with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Members of each committee should include three city officials, appointed by Metro Cities, one county commissioner appointed by the Association of MN Counties or a comparable entity, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three of the local officials should be elected officials. Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit to meet with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision-making. 4-C Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council Our region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges around the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure, Metro Cities believes that a comprehensive analysis of the Metropolitan Council is timely and appropriate,to assure that the region is equipped to address the future needs of a rapidly changing and growing metropolitan region. Metro Cities supports an objective,forward thinking analysis of the Metropolitan Council that includes the Council's authority, activities, services, and its geographical jurisdiction, and includes analysis of whether the Council is positioned to be effective in the coming decades. 4-D Oversight of Metropolitan Council Metro Cities supports the bipartisan Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Government,or another entity,to monitor and review the Metropolitan Council's activities and to provide transparency and accountability of the Metropolitan 38 2016 Legislative Policies