2016-009 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFORM 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. 1