The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9C Metropolitan Council Reform Representative Report 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 AGENDA #: 9C PREPARED BY: FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER PRESENTED BY: FRANK BOYLES AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCILOR TO REPRESENT THE CITY AT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE REFORM BILL WORK SESSIONS DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to select a member of the City Council to attend two or more meetings to represent the City Council views with respect to a proposed Metropolitan Council Legislative Reform Bill. History Scott County has joined with three other metropolitan area counties to revise the composition, method of appointment, responsibilities and parties responsible for the appointment of council members. The belief of the counties is that the Metropolitan Council, an unelected board should not be responsible only to the governor, should not be able to levy taxes and should not be able to operate various public systems nor mandate various development policies to all metro cities and counties as set forth in THRIVE 2040. To address these issues the four counties have prepared principals for Metropolitan Council Reform (attached). At last year’s legislative session, a handful of Metropolitan Council Reform bills were offered. None of them passed. The four counties believe that the prospects of success are greatly improved if metropolitan area public entities agree on one desired outcome. Current Circumstances The counties would like to work with cities to agree upon language for a Metropolitan Council reform bill. Accordingly, the attached September 12, 2016 letter has been distributed to metropolitan area cities. The letter invites each city to: 1. Appoint one elected representative of the city council. 2. Have the elected representative attend two meetings, one on November 16, 2016 and the other on December 14, 2016 both from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District located at 2099 University Avenue in St. Paul. Presumably the elected representatives from the four metropolitan area counties together with those of the metropolitan area cities will jointly prepare 2 legislation which they can collectively support. Having accomplished that they will look for authors in both houses in hopes that ultimately the legislation can be adopted and meaningful reform accomplished. Conclusion The City Council should determine if it wishes to have a member of the council serve on this body or not. Councilor Thompson has expressed an interest. At the work session, a question was raised about whether a more experienced councilor should be appointed. On the other hand, the council could decide not to participate. ISSUES: The city is a member of Metro Cities. Metro Cities has policies on this topic which are not consistent with the policies that are likely to be developed by this group. If the council appoints a representative, that person should have the Metro Cities Policies for comparison purposes. When one councilor serves on a group whose objective is to develop legislation, there is the challenge that the council representative reflects the view of the council majority. This can be difficult particularly if the City Council, as a group, has not voted on the topic. To assist the appointee in this, regard the council could review and discuss their preferences with respect to the attached set of reform options. FINANCIAL IMPACT: If a councilor is appointed to represent the city, he/she will be entitled to per diems for these meetings. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and second to appoint a member of the City Council to represent the city with respect to Metropolitan Council Reform Effort and to periodically report and receive input from the entire council on this topic. 2. Motion and second to elect not to appoint a representative and communicate the same to this group. RECOMMENDED MOTION: As determined by the City Council. Options for Metropolitan Council Reform by Adopted Reform Principle 1 A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Principle I: Majority of Councilmembers elected officials Principle V: Representation from every metro county government Principle II: Cities directly control appointment of city representatives Principle III: Counties directly appoint county representatives Principle IV: Staggered terms not contiguous with Governor Principle VI: Voting based on population, with checks and balances A(I):  16 city representatives (1 from each current Council district)  7 county representatives (1 from each metro county) B(I):  Counties directly appoint Commissioner representatives  Metro Cities appoints city representatives through a nominating process C(I): Staggered 4-year terms, not contiguous with the Governor’s D(I): One person one vote (either through membership composition or weighting), with a supermajority requirement (on some or all issues) Pros: Large number of districts allows for diverse areas/interests to be represented Pros: Metro Cities is an established organization; could make nominating process easier Pros: Term length allows time to develop expertise in Council matters Pros: Does not allow the most populous cities/counties to dominate Cons: Difficult for citizens to determine their district Cons: Not all metro-area cities are members of Metro Cities Cons: May lead to situation where a local government member on the Council fails to be reelected midway through his/her Council term Cons: Supermajority requirement would make it more difficult to take action A(II):  Counties as districts  1 city and 1 county rep from each B(II):  Counties directly appoint Commissioner representatives  League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) appoints city representatives C(II): Two-year terms, appointment aligning with election years D(II): One person one vote (either through membership composition or weighting), with a requirement that at least 2 suburban counties agree Pros: Allows citizens to easily discern their district; stronger relationship between Council and citizens Pros:  LMC is an established organization; could make nominating process easier  Nearly all MN cities are members Pros: Would minimize situations where a Council member fails to get re-elected to his/her local gov’t position Pros: Does not allow the most populous cities/counties to dominate 2 A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Cons:  Districts are not evenly divided by population (could be mitigated with weighted voting)  Districts would be larger than current districts; each member would represent a large and diverse population Cons:  LMC is a statewide organization; no metro-area focus  LMC is a voluntary organization; not all cities are members Cons:  Would NOT align with Principle IV  Does not allow much time to develop expertise Cons:  Could make it more difficult to take action  Would make it more difficult to achieve buy-in from cities A(III):  7 county districts  City districts divided based on Met Council community designations (e.g. Urban Center, Suburban, etc.) B(III):  Counties directly appoint Commissioner representatives  Cities develop process for appointing city representatives Other Option D(i): Potential Add-On: Cities/counties given ¾ of vote share (with weighted voting), non-local government members (e.g. MVTA representative) given ¼ of vote share Pros:  Would ensure representation from a wide variety of communities  Interests of groups are likely aligned in many ways, making it easier for delegates to represent the opinions of their constituencies Pros:  Allows all metro cities to participate, whether or not they are members of organizations Pros: Pros: Incorporates opinions of non-local government entities which still giving local governments the most influence Cons:  No assurance of even geographical distribution of members  Districts would not be evenly divided by population (could be mitigated with weighted voting) Cons:  Would require coordination/time/money to establish nomination process Cons: Cons: Non-local government members would get minimal influence, may not fulfil spirit of federal law 3 A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting A(i): Potential add-on: Additional members to meet Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) requirements* *the Federal Government requires MPOs to have public agency and State officials, as well as local government officials B(IV):  Counties directly appoint non-elected representatives  Cities (through nominating committees, etc.) appoint non-elected city representatives D(ii): Potential Add-On: Non-local government members given equivalent weight as the median local government representative Pros:  Could allow for more diverse perspectives, expertise on Council  Would meet federal requirements Pros: Negates the arguments against elected officials service Pros:  May help achieve buy-in from the Governor  Fulfills the spirit of Federal law Cons: Non-elected officials would still have a role in levying taxes, etc. Cons:  Does NOT comply with Principles I and II  Non-elected officials would still have a role in levying taxes, etc. Cons:  Non-elected officials would continue to have significant influence on Met Council policy A(ii): Potential add-on: Additional representatives for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and/or Minneapolis and St. Paul B(V): Governor appoints all members but is constrained to a list of nominees from cities and counties D(iii): Potential Add-On: Non-local government members only allowed to vote when the Council acts as an MPO Pros:  Would help achieve buy-in from these cities/counties  Acknowledges the large population centers  Could allow for broader perspectives on the Council Pros: Would help achieve buy-in from the Governor Pros: Would prevent non-elected officials from being involved beyond what is required for federal law 4 A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Cons: Could mean disproportional representation of these cities/counties on the Council Cons:  Would require a change in current law  Would preserve ties between the Council and the Governor  Would NOT conform with Principles I and II Cons:  Non-local government members may have valuable insights on non-MPO issues  May be logistically challenging Other Option B(VI): Chair appointed by Governor D(iv): Potential Add-On: Chair nonvoting except to break a tie Pros: Pros:  Would help achieve buy-in from the Governor  Allows Chair to be a full-time position Pros: If Chair is an appointed position most of the influence would still be with elected officials Cons: Cons:  Non-elected individual would still have a significant role in the Council  Would preserve ties between the Council and the Governor Cons: If Chair is appointed position a non-elected official could still wield significant influence B(VII): Chair appointed by Metropolitan Council members Other Option: Pros: Chair would be accountable to the metro-area constituency Pros: Cons: If Chair was also a local elected official the role of the Chair would have to be scaled back significantly Cons: B(i): Potential Add-On: Additional members appointed by the Governor 5 A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Pros:  Would help achieve buy-in from the Governor  Could help broaden the range of perspectives/expertise on the Council Cons:  Non-elected individual would still have a significant role in the Council  Would preserve ties between the Council and the Governor B(ii): Potential Add-On: Additional members appointed by other organizations (e.g. MVTA) Pros: Could help broaden the range of perspectives/expertise on the Council Cons: Non-elected individual would still have a significant role in the Council B(iii): Potential Add-On: Governor has veto authority for appointments Pros: Would help achieve buy-in from the Governor Cons: Would preserve ties between the Council and the Governor Other Option Pros: Cons: Appendix: Other Met Council Options Not Covered in Chart - Council’s role and responsibilities - Changes to territory (7-county metro area or beyond) - Member time commitment - Member compensation - Role of any advisory committees (a la TPAC) - Procedure if a member resigns or is not re-elected - Procedure to remove a member - Any citizen input on who should make up the Council