The URL can be used to link to this page

2016.04.05 Work Session Packet (2nd)4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 CITY of Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov CRYSTAL Posted: April 1, 2016 CRYSTAL CITY COUNCIL SECOND WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, April 5, 2016 To immediately follow the Regular City Council Meeting Conference Room A Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the second work session of the Crystal City Council was held at p.m. on Tuesday, April 5, 2016 in Conference Room A located at 4141 Douglas Drive, Crystal, Minnesota. I. Attendance Council members Staff Adams Norris Dahl Therres Deshler Ray Kolb Revering Libby Gilchrist Parsons Serres Peak II. Agenda The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Bassett Creek bank stabilization 2. Gaulke Pond sediment removal 3. Phase 15 assessments 4. Met Council governance 5. Constituent issues update 6. New business* 7. Announcements* * Denotes no supporting information included in the packet. III. Adjournment The work session adjourned at p.m. Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531-1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529. Memorandum Cof ALL DATE: April 5, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Bassett Creek Bank Stabilization Background Requested Action This contract with Barr will be coming before the Council April 191h. Staff is just looking for any comments or questions from the Council. Due to all the regulatory paperwork and processes, no timeline is set for construction at this point. Memorandum Cof ALL DATE: April 5, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Gaulke pond dredging Background The 2016 Utility CIP includes the dredging of Gaulke pond (BU 6804). Gaulke pond serves a critical role in storm water management through the middle of the City. The pond is the final pond in the series of the Memory, Brownwood, Hagemeister, and Gaulke system. All the water that enters any of these ponds ends up in Gaulke pond. From there, the water is pumped from Gaulke pond to the storm water system in Robbinsdale where it is then transported to the Twin Lake chain. The proposed dredging will occur only near the inlet for the pump (see circled area on ., the figure). This work is important to provide for continued normal operation and reduce the amount of sediment near the pipe so that the pipe does not become clogged. In order to conduct this work, the City may need authorization/permits from the Minnesota Department of Resources, US Army Corp of Engineers, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Hennepin County. Due to all these regulatory components, staff is proposing to contract with Barr Engineering for professional services to assist with the design, regulatory paperwork, and ultimately approvals. The cost will be paid for out of the project budget. Requested Action This contract with Barr will be coming before the Council April 19th. Staff is just looking for any comments or questions from the Council. Due to all the regulatory paperwork and processes, no timeline is set for construction at this point. Memorandum Cof ALL DATE: April 5, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director Mark Ray, PE, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Phase 15 assessments Background Staff has been reviewing the project costs for the Phase 15 Street Reconstruction Project and evaluating scenarios for both Phase 15 and 16 Street Reconstruction Projects. Staff will present on the project funding, discuss longer term considerations, and project assessments. Fund Balance Based on the project bids, currently proposed assessments, and funding analysis, the fund balance of the Street Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility Funds will be as follows (assuming Phase 16 occurs in 2017): Street Reconstruction Fund • $2,109,904 at end of 2016 • $389,453 at the end of 2017 • $117,049 at the end of 2018 Storm Water Fund • $31,968 at end of 2016 • ($535,131) at end of 2017 • ($7,328) at end of 2018 Recommended Action Review and discuss the Street Reconstruction Program financing and assessments C�rMemorandum AL DATE: March 31, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Governance In recent Newsbrief and weekly information packets, the Council has received letters from various cities and counties regarding proposed changes to governance of the Metropolitan Council. A bill to restructure the Metropolitan Council to one made up of county and city officials passed the House Subcommittee on Metropolitan Governance and is continuing through the legislative process. Representatives from Dakota, Carver, Scott, and Anoka counties have sought support for this proposed change, authored by Rep. Albright -Prior Lake. Metro Cities lobbies on behalf of the shared interests of all metropolitan cities and opposes this proposal. Metro Cities supports staggered terms for Metropolitan Council members and changes to the nominating committee that recommends Council members, to require the committee to be comprised of a majority of local officials. Metro Cities opposes local elected officials on the Metropolitan Council due to the incompatibilities of the offices and the impracticality of asking city officials, who are generally not full time public officials, to serve in this capacity. The following background materials are attached: - February 2 letter and attachments from City of Minnetonka; - February 8 letter and attachments from Anoka County, cities of Bethel and Lino Lakes; - February 8 letter and attachments from Dakota County representing a coalition of counties and cities; - February 10 Star Tribune editorial; February 12 email from Patricia Nauman, Metro Cities Executive Director; and - 2016 Metro Cities Legislative Policies regarding Metropolitan Agencies. The City Council requested discussion of Met Council governance at a work session. Attach: nKa 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 952-939-8200 Fax 952-939-8244 Terry Schneider, Mayor February 2, 2016 Dear: From time to time throughout the Metropolitan Council's history, the board's governance structure has been debated and a variety of alternative methodologies have been suggested. In recent years, state legislation has been introduced to change from appointed to elected officials or to have appointed members eligible only if they are currently elected officials. The Minnetonka City Council has concerns about these proposed changes that would unduly politicize regional planning efforts and service delivery. On January 25, 2016, the city council adopted the attached resolution of support for the Metro Cities position related to the Met Council's regional governance structure. We support the appointment of Met Council members by the governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the Met Council chair should coincide with the term of the governor. Further, a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials is preferred. I'd be happy to discuss this with you if desired and appreciate any support you could lend to our position. Sincerely, Terry Schneider Mayor Enclosure Geralyn Barone, Minnetonka City Manager Minnetonka... where quality 49 our nature Honorable Terri E. Bonoff Minnesota State Senate 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155-1606 Honorable David W. Hann Minnesota State Senate 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Room 147 St. Paul, MN 55155-1206 Honorable Melisa Franzen Minnesota State Senate 95 Rev, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Room 3403 St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Jon Applebaum Minnesota House of Representatives 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1606 Honorable Yvonne Selcer Minnesota House of Representatives 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Paul Rosenthal Minnesota House of Representatives 100 Rev, Dr, Martin Luther King Jr, Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Mark Dayton Governor of the State of Minnesota Office of the Governor and Lt. Governor 116 Veterans Service Building 20 W. 12th Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Adam Duininck, Chair Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 Sean Kershaw, Executive Director Citizens League 213 E. 41h Street, Suite 425 St. Paul, MN 55101 Jan Callison, Chair Hennepin County Board of Commissioners A2400 Government Center 3900 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 City Council Agenda Item #1413 Meeting of January 25, 2016 Brief Description: Resolution supporting Metro Cities Policy 4-13 — Regional Governance Structure Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution Background The Metropolitan Council (Met Council) has been the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the seven -county Twin Cities region for nearly 50 years. Under state law, the council is charged with establishing regional growth policies and long-range plans for transportation, aviation, water resources and regional parks. Its services and infrastructure that support communities and businesses to ensure a high quality of life include regional transit, wastewater treatment services, regional parks, planning, and affordable housing. A 17 -member board appointed by the governor guides the strategic growth of the metro area, adhering to the council's mission of fostering efficient growth for a prosperous region. Elected officials and citizens share their expertise with the council by serving on key advisory committees. From time to time throughout the Met Council's history, the board's governance structure has been debated and a variety of alternative methodologies have been suggested. In recent years, state legislation has been introduced to change from appointed to elected officials or to have appointed members eligible only if they are currently elected officials. The city of Minnetonka is a member of Metro Cities, an organization serving as a voice for metropolitan cities at the legislature and Met Council. Elected and appointed city officials from the area annually develop and adopt legislative policies. Metro Cities Policy 4-B addresses the Met Council's regional governance structure as follows: 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 Meeting of January 25, 2016 Page 2 Subject: Resolution supporting Metro Cities Policy 4-B 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. At the city council's January 11 study session, the city manager reported on renewed efforts by certain interests to adopt legislation changing the governance structure of the Met Council. Council Member Wiersum provided a brief background on the Metro Cities' position, and Mayor Schneider suggested the city council consider supporting Metro Cities' policy on the issue. Attached for council review and discussion is a resolution to do so. Recommendation Adopt a resolution supporting the Metro Cities Policy 4-B — Regional Governance Structure. Originated by: Geralyn Barone, City Manager Resolution No. 2016-008 Resolution Supporting Metro Cities Policy 4-B — Regional Governance Structure Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The Metropolitan Council (Met Council) has been the regional policy- making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the seven -county Twin Cities region for nearly 50 years. 1,02. A 17 -member board appointed by the Governor guides the strategic growth of the metro area, adhering to the council's mission of fostering efficient growth for a prosperous region. Elected officials and citizens share their expertise with the council by serving on key advisory committees. 1.03. The city of Minnetonka is a member of Metro Cities, an organization serving as a voice for metropolitan cities at the legislature and Met Council. 1.04. Metro Cities has adopted Policy 4-B — Regional Governance Structure as follows: 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. 1.05. The Minnetonka City Council discussed and concurred with the policy at its January 25, 2016 meeting. Resolution No, 2016-008 Page 2 Section 2. Council Action. 2.01, The Minnetonka City Council hereby supports Metro Cities Policy 4-13 — Regional Governance Structure. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on January 25, 2016. TerrySchneider, Mayor Attest: David E. Maeda, City Clerk Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Wiersum Seconded by: Wagner Voted in favor of: Ellingson, Allendorf, Acomb, Wiersum, Wagner, Schneider Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Bergstedt Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on January 25, 20161 ,. David E. Maeda, City Clerk Rhonda Sivarajah Chair, District #6 Anoka County COUNTY ADMINISTRATION RespeCtft.11, Innovative, Fiscally Responsible February 8, 2016 Dear Council illember: 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 l-Ietropolitan Cotmcil 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 Tlansif in the Twin Cifies Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region. 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 Ailetropolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, use 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 to meet with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at 651-438-4540 (or at Claire.Ptitchard�co.dakota.mn.us) for more information or to schedule a presentation by an elected official to your Council or Board. We look forward to working with Vou in this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity. Please make every effort to return the adopted resolution to Claire. Pritchardfa co.dakota.mn.us by Tuesday, March 8, or as early as possible given your approval process. Sincerely, Q,V, Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair Brian Kirkham Reinert Anoka County Board of Commissioner Bethel City Council Mayor, Lino Lakes Government Center ♦ 2100 311 Avenue, Suite 700 ♦ Anoka, MN 55303-5024 ♦ www.anokacounty.us Office: 763-323-5700 ♦ Fax: 763-323-5682 A TDDITTY:763-323-5289 Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer 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 z. 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. 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: 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. 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 public'." 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. ' Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 TEMPLATE RESOLUTION: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 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 Metropolitan 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; and 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 supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: I A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; I. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 4 ATTACHMENT A: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP Participating County Officials: Anoka County: Commissioner Matt Look Burnsville: Commissioner Scott Schulte Chanhassen: Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah Elko New Market: County Administrator Jerry Soma Carver County: Commissioner Randy Maluchnik Lino Lakes: Commissioner Tom Workman Prior Lake: County Administrator Dave Hemze Dakota County: Commissioner Chris Gerlach Shakopee: Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Scott County: Commissioner Mike Beard Commissioner Jon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton Participating City Officials: Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Councilmember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenburger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: Councilmember Mike Franklin Lino Lakes: Mayor Jeff Reinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: Councilmember Jeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations. Governments 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. The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning Agthorlty Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. 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. Metropolitan Transportation The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. Commission (Oakland CA! 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. The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the Independent School Districts. Houston -Galveston Area Council 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 The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. North Central Texas Council of The metro -area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are represented by judges. Governments 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. The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Atlanta Regional Commission 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. 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. Puget Sound Regional Council 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 National Capital Region Transportation PlanningBoard Maricopa Association of Governments 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. 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. The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at -large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Southwestern Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Commission Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at -large members. 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 Delaware Valley Regional Department of Transportation. Planning Commission 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 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. New York Metropolitan The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city Transportation Council 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. The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state Baltimore Regional departments (3 non-voting). Transportation Board A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. _ 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 Southeast Michigan Council of representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Governments Michigan. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. 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. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the Planning Regional Transportation Authority. Southern California Association of Governments 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. 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 The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. Duluth -Superior Metropolitan There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Interstate Council Superior. Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Cfrart.izatirn Fargo -Moorhead Metropolitan Council St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Metropolitan Council Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. 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. 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. 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. The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. _ Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments La Crosse Area Planning Committee Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen Mankato/North Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Planning Organization ntatives. Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. r County Administration February 8, 2016 Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Dear Manager/Administrator/Clerk, 651.438.4528 We are part of a coalition of County and City leaders from the suburban metropolitan area Fax 651.438.4405 who have become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the mmdakuWountyus 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. 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, 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 to meet with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at 651.438.4540 (or at Claire. Pritchard @co.dakota.mn. us) for more information or to schedule a presentation by an elected official 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 make every effort to return the adopted resolution to Claire.Pritchard@co.dakota.mn.us by Tuesday, March 8, or as early as possible given your approval process. Sincerely, r Jeff Joh on Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Matt Look Anoka County Board of Commissioners Brian Kirkham Bethel City Council Tom` &kman Cary r County Board of Commissioners Nancy Scho eiler Dakota County Board of Commissioners Chris Gerlach Dakota County Board of Commissioners Rhonda Sivarajah Anoka County Board of Commissioners Scott chulte of Ano a County Board of Commissioners Randy Mal nik Carver County Board of Commissioners �( -cam-- - Denny L Mayor, City of Channassen Lizork n Dakota unty Board of Commissioners Mike Franklin Jordan City Council .' / Q / /� / cl, u Mike Beard io-icb Scott County Board of Commissioners Scott County Board of Commissioners Enclosures: 3 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 Thrive204O 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 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. 6 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. 3 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES: 13) Aren't local elected officials too busy to serve on the Council? i� 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. 4 ATTACHMENT A: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP Participating County Officials: Anoka County: Commissioner Matt Look Commissioner Scott Schulte Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah County Administrator Jerry Soma Carver County: Commissioner Randy Maluchnik Commissioner Tom Workman County Administrator Dave Hemze Dakota County: Commissioner Chris Gerlach Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Scott County: Commissioner Mike Beard Commissioner Jon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton Participating City Officials: Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Councilmember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenburger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: Councilmember Mike Franklin Lino Lakes: Mayor Jeff Reinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: Councilmember Jeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations. Governments 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. The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning Authority Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. 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. Metropolitan Transportation The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. Commission (Oakland CAl 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. The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the Independent School Districts. Houston -Galveston Area Council 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 The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. North Central Texas Council of The metro -area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are Governments represented by judges. Boston. Region MPO 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. 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. The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Atlanta Re i� onal_Commiss_ion 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. 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. Puget Sound Re_gionaJ Council 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 kN_ �__Govern3nce Structurd., The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state government. National Capital Region The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General Transportation Planning Board Assemblies. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen members. 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. Marico a Association of Governments 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. The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at -large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Southwestern Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Commission Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at -large members. 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 Delaware Valley Regional Department of Transportation. Planning Commission 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 GowirnanceStructUre 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. New York Metropolitan The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city Transportation Council 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. The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state Baltimore Regional departments (3 non-voting). Transportation Board A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. 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 Southeast Michigan Council of representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Governments Michigan. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. 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. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the F I i:ir��'ll 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. 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 Southern California Association regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. Duluth -Superior Metropolitan There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Interstate Council Superior. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. Grand Forms - East Grana Forks The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the �T Metropolitan Planning.Planning Commissions of the City of Garand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. rganizatior7 Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and Fargo -Moorhead Metrorsolitan Moorhead Planning Commissions. Council Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central St. Cloud Area Planning Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. Orr?anizatio-i �- 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. Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. 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 Plannirn; The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Committee Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. ianicat��lorth Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. c,, Planning Organization Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives.; 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: 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 i. 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. 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. Vl_ The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. I 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 public'." 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. ' Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 TEMPLATE RESOLUTION: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 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 Metropolitan 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; and 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 supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; 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; �V 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; V; The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Suburban leaders seek local control over seats on Met Council - StarTribune.com Page 1 of 2 SOUTH impsµU Suburban leaders seek local control over seats on Met Council Officials from four suburban counties want to change how the regional planning agency is run. By Emma Nelson (http://www.startribune.com/emma-nelson/261800211/) Star Tribune FEBRUARY 9, 2016 — 9:47PM A long -brewing battle over the future of the Metropolitan Council intensified Tuesday, as leaders from four suburban counties called for local control over seats on the regional planning agency. A coalition of local leaders from Anoka, Carver, Dakota and Scott counties wants the Met Council to be made up mostly of elected officials chosen from cities and counties throughout the region, rather than representatives appointed by the governor, "Minnesotans take pride in having an active role in the decisionmaking process when it comes to public services, but the current structure of the Met Council keeps their voices silent," said Rhonda Siva -rajah, Anoka County Board chairwoman, in a statement. "It's time to get out ofthe'60s and have elected representation on the council. The issue has been a complaint of local government leaders for years but would require action by the Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton. Created in 1967, the Met Council handles policymaking and long-term planning for the metro region, making decisions about housing, transportation, regional parks and water rkkSUUr4't=s, '"Phe council's governance structure is something that has been debated since the council was created nearly 50 years ago," said Kate Brickman, Met Council communications director, in a statement. "Ultimately, the council is a creation of the Legislature — any changes to our governance structure is a decision for the Legislature and the governor." A Dayton spokesman said the governor has not yet reviewed the coalition's proposal. The coalition is asking metro -area counties and cities to support a list of principles for reform such as staggering council members' terms so they're not the same as the governor's, and having representation from every metro county government. Some communities have already formed opinions, Burnsville included support for a "council of governments" model on its 2016 legislative agenda and added that it "opposes any expansion of Metropolitan Council powers." Minnetonka, however, has raised concerns. The City Council passed a resolution last month in support of the Metro Cities association's position on Met Council governance, which recommends more local involvement in the selection process for Met Council members but not a council of elected officials. "Once you're elected, then you start to look out for yourself, I think, versus the broader region,"Minnetonka Mayor Terry Schneider said. In September 2014, leaders from all five suburban counties confronted the Met Council after it released its long-term transportation plan. Suburban and rural communities said the Transportation Policy Plan largely ignores the roadways and rail lines they rely on. Though complaints about the Met Council's governance structure are nothing new, the transportation plan spurred suburban leaders to examine the issue more closely, Dakota County Commissioner Chris Gerlach said. '"That really was a catalyst that you know, something is not right here," he said. City and county leaders have been meeting informally to discuss the issue since last fall, Gerlach said. Washington County hasn't been involved because its county board is divided on the issue. This legislative session, coalition members intend to support legislative efforts to remake the Met Council in the image they've laid out — or something like it, anyway. (http://stmedia.startribune.comAmag es/ows_14412365357029 ri rrr GTUPFr A long -brewing battle between the suburban Twin Cities and the Metropolitan Council was renewed Tuesday, when leaders from four http://www, startribune. com/suburban-leaders-seek-local-control-over-seats-on-met-council... 2/10/2016 Suburban leaders seek local control over seats on Met Council - StarTribune.com Page 2 of 2 Scott County Commissioner Mike Beard, a former Republican legislator and coalition member, said he thinks there's an appetite at the Legislature for those kinds of reforms. "I would be willing to predict we would be happy to get behind something that gives us even 70 percent of what we think we need," he said. 'The Legislature created this; the Legislature's going to have to clean it up." emma.nelson@startribune.com 952-746-3287 emmamarienelson http://www. startribune. com/suburban-leaders-seek-local-control-over-seats-on-met-council... 2/10/2016 Anne Norris From: Patricia Nauman [patricia@metrocitiesmn.org] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 2:58 PM To: Patricia Nauman Subject: Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal - Metro Cities Policy Position Good afternoon: Representatives from Dakota, Carver, Scott, and Anoka counties have sent a request to metro area city officials seeking support for their proposal to restructure the governance of the Metropolitan Council to one made up of county and city officials. Metro Cities has received requests by city officials for clarification of our policy positions on this topic. I am sending this communication so that you have an understanding of Metro Cities' policy positions and how they were generated, and Metro Cities' perspective on the four counties' proposal. Metro Cities supports the current statutory appointment process for the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor, and in contrast with current law, supports staggered terms and modifications to the selection process for Metropolitan Council members to more fully involve local officials in the selection process. Metro Cities has initiated and continues to support these legislative changes. Such changes would enhance the governance of the Council by providing more local official input into member selection and stabilize ideological shifts in Council membership. These are pragmatic changes that could reasonably be accepted by the Governor and Legislature. On the surface, the proposal by Dakota, Anoka, Scott and Carver county officials, to have the Metropolitan Council made up of local officials, would appear to be a solution to the tensions that exist between a regional level of government and local governments in the metro area. However, a 2011 Metro Cities Governance Task Force identified several problematic implications for this structure and did not recommend this model of metropolitan governance. Metro Cities subsequently has not recommended this model in its positions on the governance of the Metropolitan Council. Task force members identified several concerns, primarily related to the incompatibility of holding the offices of local official and Metropolitan Council member. Concerns centered on: Local officials who are elected in one community and are appointed to serve other communities through Metropolitan Council membership could face actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts in determining regional investments, funding and policy. + Local officials would be serving and voting on two political subdivisions, generally considered to be incompatible functions. ■ The Metropolitan Council could become overly parochial and politicized, which could hamper regional planning, and service delivery effectiveness and efficiency. * Appointments to the Metropolitan Council could potentially be geographically imbalanced. ■ There could be an infusion of special interests and political campaigns into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members. a Local officials would serve as both the "regulator" and "regulated" party, which are generally considered to be incompatible roles. This governance structure could result in less scope of expertise on regional issues on the Metropolitan Council. 6 A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight. The 2011 Task Force also identified a concern about the impracticality of having sitting city officials serve as Metropolitan Council members. Unlike county commissioners, most city officials are not full time mayors or city council members. The Task Force concluded that the practical result could be to narrow the pool of potential candidates from which to draw future Metropolitan Council members. Metro Cities' policies do align with the counties' proposal in support of staggered terms for Metropolitan Council members. Staggered terms would confer significant benefits for regional governance, providing more knowledge continuity on the Council, more political and philosophical diversity, and fewer possibilities for narrow policy agendas to emerge from the Metropolitan Council. Metro Cities' governance policies on the Metropolitan Council recognize the importance of a separate regional government, more input by local officials into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members, staggered terms, and a high and consistent level of collaboration and engagement between local governments. Metro Cities, through its representation of metro cities' shared interests, works to ensure that city needs are accounted for all Council functions and planning, and for local officials to have adequate input and opportunities to contribute their expertise and perspectives on regional issues. Please let me know if you would further information or if you would like to discuss these issues. I can be reached at 651-215-4002 or email: patricia(LImetrocitiesmn.or Sincerely, Patricia Nauman Executive Director Metro Cities Metropolitan Agencies r 4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to the majority of our state's population and businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time, our metropolitan region faces significant challenges and opportunities. The responses to these opportunities and challenges will determine the future success of the region and its competitiveness in our state, national and world economies. The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region, and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and service delivery. The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency, with regional and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration with city governments. The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes, unless such changes have the consent of the region's cities. • Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services and planning throughout the metropolitan area. • Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level than at the local level by individual local units of government. • The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services and planning and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues, and be required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory committees and task forces. 2016 Legislative Policies 37 Metropolitan Agencies The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and implementation around the regional development guide, policy plans, systems 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-B 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 Metropolitan Agencies Council operations and functions. The Metropolitan Council should examine its scope of services to determine their benefit and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region. 4-E 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. The Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long-term service and fee stability. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are collected. Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees to fund regional projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return. 4-F Regional Systems Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's authority over 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 prepared by the Metropolitan Council for the 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 be established only 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 fit these criteria. Any proposed additional regional system must have an established regional or state funding source. 2016 Legislative Policies 39 1of1 Open Issues (JIRA) Displaying 3 issues at 03/31/16 12:31 PM. Issue Type Key Summary Assignee Reporter Status Created Updated Issue CRCI-48 Noise from basketball courts at North Lions Park Olga Parsons Anne Norris New Issue 3/25/2016 12:51 3/31/2016 12:30 Issue CRCI-42 60XX Rockford Road Anne Norris Anne Norris In Progress 9/10/2015 21:51 3/31/2016 12:31 Issue CRCI-33 ADA Accessibility of Council meetings Anne Norris Anne Norris In Progress 7/1/2015 15:21 3/31/2016 12:31 Generated at Thu Mar 31 12:31:51 CDT 2016 by Anne Norris using JIRA 7.2.0-OD-05-022#72002-shat:c8ddad15ad868a9f23d9b99f45083e02b224f233. 1of1