Message from the Chair - October 2003

Balancing regional needs and local control

Council Chair

Peter Bell

Lake Elmo petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals to review the Metro Council's April 2003 action, which required the city to modify its proposed comprehensive plan update to ensure the local plan conforms with metropolitan system plans. The Council's action was consistent with an earlier administrative law judge's ruling, in March, stating that the Council, indeed, has the authority to require plan modifications, and recommending that the Council require the city to modify its plan. The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments September 23.

The legal dispute involving the Metro Council and City of Lake Elmo is hardly the norm in finding the right balance between regional needs and local control. In fact, of the hundreds of local comprehensive plans and thousands of plan amendments to come through the Council over the years, Lake Elmo is the only local unit of government to simply refuse to negotiate and force the Council into litigation.

That's not to say the Metro Council and communities have always achieved complete satisfaction. They haven't. But at the very least, every other jurisdiction has recognized that local decisions have regional impacts, and they've been willing to negotiate mutually acceptable solutions. Solutions that preserve local character while also promoting the efficient use of regional infrastructure and investments.

It is unfortunate to have to go down the path of litigation with Lake Elmo. When I was appointed to the Council in January, I was optimistic about achieving a negotiated resolution, believing resources would be better spent, and the metro area would be better served by reaching an accord.

While some have portrayed disagreement between the city and Council as having David and Goliath proportions, or misrepresented the Council's intentions as "forcing the city to urbanize," I can assure you that neither is the case.

This is not about the big guy picking on the little guy, nor does it represent the heavy-hand of regulation. It is about fairness. It's about cooperation. It's about asking a community that has reaped the benefits of regional participation and partnership to embrace broader regional objectives as part of local decision making.

I am an unapologetic conservative with the utmost respect for local control and self-determination. In this case, however, Lake Elmo's refusal to plan even for minimal urban growth is simply unfair to neighboring communities and the region as a whole, particularly in light of future growth projections and the significant costs associated with infrastructure, including roads and sewers, that serve and accommodate growth.

What the Council is asking of Lake Elmo is reasonable.

Given the city's location, near the urban area and smack-dab in the path of growth, and the region's substantial investment there, the Council asked Lake Elmo to designate and plan for higher-density, sewered development on a relatively small portion of land along its southern border, along I-94. It's about 12 percent of the city. The option represents significant compromise by the Metro Council and provides ample opportunity to preserve the community's primarily rural character.

Why should the region have a say?

State and regional taxpayers have invested significantly in that part of the region to keep abreast of growth. Those regional investments include three major highways, the 2,200-acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, regional sewer service to the community with additional capacity in the works — planned with the participation of past Lake Elmo representatives.

Today city officials are refusing to consider anything but rural-estate housing densities on 2.5- and 3-acre lots, meaning regional investments there would be underutilized and taxpayers would pay again for the infrastructure needed to serve growth elsewhere. In addition, the city is challenging in court the Council's regional planning authority.

The regional/local planning relationship the Legislature established has served the region well for decades, and the Council has a long history of working cooperatively with local units of government to ensure the orderly and economic growth of the region. It isn't always easy or without differences that have been, in all other instances, eventually and mutually resolved.

Despite my disappointment that a court-ordered resolution is probably inevitable, I feel strongly that the Council is obligated to take all reasonable steps to ensure that public infrastructure is used efficiently. I am confident the court will sustain the Council's position on this matter and am more convinced than ever of the need for, and legitimacy of, the Metropolitan Council as an advocate, not just for communities, but for the region as a whole.

Peter Bell

October 2003