09/05/2007 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Revmve — - Ezpevdihvrel We also feared that the Council would use the policy to micro manage small comprehensive plan amendments. Metro Cities countered with a proposal that, "on remaining guided land, density will be calculated based on verified historical develop- ment patterns since 2000 or the middle of the density range, whichever is less." Council staff have forwarded a proposal to provide additional flexibility, based on the concept of "density credits" for cities that have a development track record since 2000. At the time this report went to print, we have not yet reached an agree- ment. We are certain it won't be the Council's original position. 5600.000 5500,000 5400,000 5300,000 5200.000 5100,000 Metro Cities Revenue 1997 through 2006 IN DUES IOTHERI Livable Communities In response to criticism of the use of Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) by some Council Members, the Metropolitan Council voted to reduce the LCDA levy by $1.0 million and to seek legislation to transfer up to $4.0 million from the LCDA to local Comprehensive Planning grants and into the Tax Base Revitalization Program. Metro Cities couldn't stop the levy reduction vote and, while planning grants and contamination cleanup are very valuable, the connotation was that the LCDA was not a worthwhile program. In conversations with many legislators and staff and in testimony before House and Senate committees, we were able to convey the value of the LCDA and derail the transfer of funds to TBRA. Consequently, there will be a regular LCDA grant round this year. We were able to keep a very popular and useful program alive this year, but the LCDA debate at the Council is not over. Metro Cities members and staff will need to work with the Council this summer to address some of the Council's concerns. The program's long term future will depend on how well we can articulate support for it, while concurrently working with the Met Council and staff to improve it Housekeeping For the 2007 session, the Council sought our support for a variety of minor technical "housekeeping" amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act Metro Cities supported the Council's effort. We also identified an opportunity to suggest a noncontroversial amendment to allow Council staff to waive the adjacent review and comment requirements for minor comprehensive plan amendments. It was our contention that both the Council and city staff were wasting time and energy on a distribution and comment process that exceeded the importance of many local amendments. The Council concurred with our assessment of the issue and our recommendation. Water Supply Advisory Committee In 2005, the Legislature created the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee to undertake planning activities to address water supply needs in the metropolitan area, including the preparation of a Twin Cities Area Water Supply Master Plan. The advisory committee met monthly throughout most of 2006 and focused on assessing water supply availabil- ity, examining water supply permit approval processes, and evaluating water supply safety and security. Metro Cities staff provided support to the committee's city appointees through- out this process. The Met Council delivered a report to the 2007 Legislature of the committee's Phase I activities that included several amendments recommended by Metro Cities. The report contained two specific recommendations: (1) clarify agency roles in water supply plan review, consolidate into one statute the requirements of community water supply plans, and link water supply planning to comprehensive planning, and (2) support a State appropriation for the Minneapolis -Saint Paul interconnection, and support for state funding for intercon- nections upon the request of local government units (the local government request clause was recommended by Metro Cities). The first recommendation is moving through the Legislature this year. Later this year, the committee will begin to delve into the development of an actual Master Plan which will address projections of water use by community, options for those areas with limitations, a process for on -going data collection and sharing, additional monitoring and assessment, regional and local roles in safety and security, a conservation toolbox, and a process for evaluating the cost/benefrt of local and regional projects. Consistent with Metro Cities' recommenda- tions, the second phase of this work will include input by technical experts. We will work to make sure that this group includes expertise from the municipal side. Metro Cities' policies oppose the Met Council becoming another water supply regulator. Staff will continue to closely monitor the activities of this committee as well as provide assistance to our city advisory committee members on an as- needed basis. Metro Cities Revenues & Expenditures 1997 through 2006 5500.000 5450,000 5400,000 5350.000 5300,000 Mil I