Metropolitan Agencies Committee
IV-A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
The statutorily-defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of 193 cities and townships covering over 3,000 square miles in seven counties. The effective and efficient delivery of certain public services and the continued economic growth of this region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to provide coordination and facilitate cooperation.
Therefore, Metro Cities supports the continued existence of a metropolitan governance system for the purpose of:
With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists today, the region needs some entity to perform these functions. However, the Twin Cities’ metropolitan Governance structure should not be granted, nor should it assume, general local government or state agency powers.
IV-B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council’s role, through the regional development guide and its accompanying policy plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. Local governments are ultimately responsible for zoning, land use planning and development decisions within their borders.
Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to the Metropolitan Council should be limited to a specific statutory assignment, or grant.
IV-C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open process that includes an opportunity for local governments and other stakeholders to provide meaningful input. Council members should understand and be responsive to the districts they represent while also serving the best interests of the region. Metropolitan Council members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
IV-D Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants.
Regional systems are currently defined in statute as transportation (with aviation), wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council’s authority for them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change.
The system plans/statements prepared by the Metropolitan Council for these regional systems should be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.
Additional regional systems should only be established if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the four existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established regional or state funding source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be established. Water supply does not meet these criteria.
IV-F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should:
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions, which are the implementation of cities’ comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. Metro Cities strongly opposes the creation of any appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions.
The most recent regional population forecasts project an additional 930,000 people and 460,000 households for the seven-county metropolitan area by the year 2030. In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region’s high quality of life:
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies:
IV-I Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are scheduled to review their comprehensive plans and submit any necessary updates to the Metropolitan Council in 2008.
Any future changes to the schedule for local comprehensive planning should be accompanied by the statutory establishment of a complementary schedule for regional planning. This schedule should:
IV-J Natural Resource Protection
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council’s efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. However, any additional steps taken by the Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that:
IV-K Inflow and Infiltration (I/I)
The Metropolitan Council’s Water Resources Management Plan established an I/I surcharge in 2007 on cities that are determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of storm water to the MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently 46 cities have been identified as excessive I/I contributors. This number is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area could be affected.
While Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/I in one city can affect development capacity of another city that lies down pipe, we are concerned about the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs, and decreasing benefits, in their on-going efforts to mitigate excessive I/I. Metro Cities opposes the ‘demand’ charge that is set to occur once the surcharge program expires. Instead, Metro Cities would encourage the Metropolitan Council to work with cities to establish a process for reaching agreed upon benchmarks to reduce inflow and infiltration. The benchmarks should be determined using a data-supported definition of excessive I/I, and adequate and verifiable flow data that is updated regularly
Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program, and encourages the Metropolitan Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area I/I mitigation through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation.
Further, Metro Cities supports state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection systems.
The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out planning activities to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. The Water Supply Advisory Committee, whose members include five municipal officials, began its work in January 2006. Its work includes analyzing technical water supply/use data, the development of a master metro area water supply plan, recommendations for clarifying roles of local, regional and state governments and streamlining and consolidating approval processes, and recommendations for funding future planning and capital investments.
The advisory committee completed Phase I of its work in December 2006, and submitted a report to the Legislature in January, 2007. Metro Cities supports the process outlined for phase II of the committee’s work, including the development of a master metro area water supply plan, with the addition of a technical advisory group that includes municipal expertise to assist in providing information to the advisory committee.
In addition to the Metropolitan Council, there are currently at least five state agencies with water related jurisdiction. There are also several federal agencies involved in water issues. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council activities associated with clarifying local, regional and state water supply roles. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter-relationships of wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Metro Cities also supports analytical work that will help streamline and consolidate the myriad and often conflicting water supply permitting processes. Metro Cities further supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. However, Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena.
Metro Cities further opposes the elevation of water supply to “Regional System” status, or the assumption of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. At this time, we oppose any regional taxes or fees for water supply planning.
IV-M Service Availability Charge (SAC)
The Met Council adopted changes to its SAC program in 2006. The original proposal would have disallowed the use of ‘grandfathered (pre 1973) SAC credits. Metro Cities opposed that change, and convened a work group to review the proposals and make recommendations. As a result of those discussions and subsequent meetings with MCES staff, the Metropolitan Council adopted a ‘no net credit’ proposal. Under this proposal, when a redeveloping property’s new use requires lower wastewater capacity than what was used in the prior seven years, SAC credits are limited to the amount needed on the site for the new use. A property developing at the same or lesser wastewater demand will not incur SAC nor get credits.
Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, simplification and lower rates. Under a no-net-credit structure, Metro Cities supports a baseline ‘look back’ of seven years, 10 years for phased developments and longer time lines to be decided on a case by case basis for redevelopment projects that involve extenuating circumstances. Metro Cities also supports a start date of 2010 to allow cities adequate time to determine and use existing SAC credits.
Metro Cities supports modifications to SAC rules adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 2008 that allow for a voluntary transfer of SAC credits from one metro city to another and from one site to another within a city, for projects that, without the credits, would mean that a business would move its operations out of state.
Metro Cities supports the rule change with the following conditions: that the business be required to provide a written “but for” certification indicating that without the transfer the business would move its operations out of state, that such transfers are strictly voluntary, that transfers be part of a package of state incentives and that cities being requested to transfer SAC credits be notified of the request at the start of any development negotiations.
Metro Cities supports this rule change with the understanding that these transfers will be limited to economic development projects with statewide significance and as such are likely to occur only in rare circumstances.
IV-N Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state parks. Therefore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improvement of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks.
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development, brown field clean up and mixed-use, transit-friendly devel opment and redevelopment. Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities.
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the l ivable communities demonstration account in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment goals.
Metr o Cities supports statutory modifications in the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Program to reflect the linkages among the LCDA and municipal objectives and goals and Met Council systems objectives and goals. Metro Cities also supports statutory changes to assure that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the LCDA program.
Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the program. Remaining interest earnings not used for pr ogram administration should be considered part of the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to established funding criteria.
Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy that bases density projections on actual development patterns, is flexible, and accommodates cities at various development stages. Any Met Council density policy must take into account the impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities.