> About Us > Chair's Message

Message from the Council Chair - January 2004

Pluses and minuses in think-tank report on Council

Public officials and agencies usually appreciate those all-too-rare instances when they receive enthusiastic editorial support, such as the Star Tribune’s Jan. 14 editorial in support of the Metropolitan Council.

But the editorial was unduly harsh in criticizing a new report from the Center of the American Experiment examining our system of regional planning and governance.

I am encouraged that a study by a conservative think-tank like the center acknowledges the need for regional planning to ensure the efficient use of sewers, roads, parks and other regional infrastructure. The Metropolitan Council was, after all, conceived by Republicans who were concerned more than three decades ago about the cost of providing regional services. I am also pleased that the center’s report effectively endorses some of the initiatives that the current Met Council has been working on during the past year. For example:

Land supply. In our 2030 Regional Development Framework, the council responds to past complaints cited by the center about the lack of an adequate land supply to meet market needs. The framework provides for a rolling 20-year supply of sewered land to ensure that we can keep pace with development, keep land prices down and accommodate our region’s projected growth in an affordable manner.

Adjacent counties. Everyone recognizes that this metropolitan area is larger than seven counties, as the center’s report argues and we acknowledge in our Regional Framework. Our council is committed to building a close, cooperative relationship with the surrounding counties. We already have held the first of what we hope will be many productive meetings with the adjacent counties, and we will seek other opportunities to share information and undertake joint projects on a voluntary basis. The center recommends going much further – expanding the council’s actual jurisdiction – and we are anxious to hear the legislative response.

Play or pay. Like the center, we have been exploring the concept of providing an option to communities that don’t want to assume their share of the region’s growth and make the most efficient use of regional infrastructure. The concept is to allow them to pay the incremental cost of having that growth go elsewhere. Of course, the devil is in the details and it’s too early to say whether a workable system can be developed.

While I am in agreement with the center on these and other items, the report also contains several recommendations with which I must take issue.

First, the center proposes to replace the council with a state department of regional planning. It is difficult to see how a single gubernatorial appointee could be more responsive to the needs of seven counties, 188 municipalities and 2.7 million people than a council with a chair and 16 members representing districts within the region. Our 16 members meet regularly with local officials, attend community functions and keep in touch with emerging issues within their respective districts.

Second, the center proposes that we provide sewers and other costly infrastructure for 6 million people by 2030 – nearly double the council’s projection for the seven-county area. This proposal raises all sorts of questions. How would this enormous cost be financed? What new taxes would be needed to help pay for it? What would this do to the very competitive sewer rates now paid by the home­owners and businesses in our region? What would happen if “we built it and they didn’t come”?

Finally, the center envisions a very fragmented system of regional planning and governance, with different functions being spun off to multiple agencies. Even the most sophisticated local official (much less the average citizen) would have a difficult time knowing who is responsible for what. This proposal also could undermine the original legislative intent in creating the council – to provide for the orderly, economical development of the seven-county area and ensure the efficient use of our regional systems.

Again, the center’s report makes several recommendations I agree with, and others that cause me concern. Nevertheless, the ideas reflected in the report merit public discussion and debate.

If, at the end of the day, the center’s report can generate some healthy discussion about regional governance, calm some of the controversy that has historically hobbled the council and achieve some positive change, then the region will be better for it.

Peter Bell

January 2004

(Originally published in the Star Tribune, January 23, 2004)