A. Which of the following options most closely resembles your
(please check one):
1._31.0 percent____ Metropolitan
Council jurisdiction should remain confined to the current
seven-county area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and
2._48.2 percent____ Metropolitan
Council jurisdiction should be enlarged to include
adjacent counties whose urban growth has made them part of the metro
3._20.7 percent____ Metropolitan
Council jurisdiction should remain unchanged, but the
Metropolitan Council should be allowed to include whatever larger
urban area it
deems necessary in preparing its development plans and
Council jurisdiction should be enlarged to include the entire state,
with the Council becoming the state planning agency.
B. Which of the following options most closely resembles your
(please check one):
1._40.0 percent___The Metropolitan
Council should continue to be appointed by the Governor.
2._43.3 percent___The Metropolitan
Council should be elected by the people.
3._16.7 percent__The Metropolitan
Council should be composed of officials of city and county
C. Which of the following options most closely resembles your
viewpoint? please check one):
1._60.0 percent__The Metropolitan
Council should continue to have both policy and operational
responsibility for metro transit and metro wastewater treatment, as
was provided in 1994 Legislation.
2._60.0 percent__The Metropolitan
Council should return to its pre-1994 role of planning and
policy-making, with operational responsibility for metro transit and
metro wastewater treatment assigned to separate, subordinate agencies.
Bill Frenzel (2) (1) (2)
Question B: this is 1963 all over again - where I came in. I still
repressed urges for election, but the brave new world turned out to be
less brave than expected. I could be talked into anything but city and
Cam Gordon (2) (2) (1)
Dennis L. Johnson (3) (1) (1)
Shari Prest (3) (3) (1)
Charles Lutz (2) (2) (1)
Allen Lovejoy (2) (2) (1)
Question A: The foundational structure of the world economy is no
longer at the national
level but at the city-state level, as it was centuries ago. We will do
well to reorganize our planning and development efforts at the
city-state level to effectively compete globally. And since the
region's boundaries as an economic unit has grown, so should the
boundaries of the Metropolitan Council's jurisdiction.
Question B: I have been very slow in coming to the conclusion that the
Metropolitan Council should be elected. Certain governors have been
very responsible in avoiding political litmus tests in appointing
members (most notably Al Quie and Jessie Ventura). However, the
quality and political leanings of many gubernatorial appointments have
not served the people nor the region's planning function. I believe
the Metro Council works best when the council members are appointed
for their qualifications with respect to urban development and broad
public policy expertise. However, that rarely happens.
Question C: I think the Council has operated well as a combined policy
and implementation organization. I feared that policy issues might be
brushed aside, and the focus of operations would dominate. However, I
don't think that has been the case. This is NOT to say, however, that
the Council's policy focus has been particularly good. We have major
structural issues that the Council is uniquely positioned to study and
advise. Of particular note are the issues of public education (and the
independent school district system), energy policy (which seems, by
default, to fall to the Legislature), and sensible/efficient land use
planning (which the Council has largely avoided). These issues
continue to be raised by community leaders, and the Metropolitan
Council leadership has been asked to respond. However, given the
political nature of the appointments, these vexing and long-standing
issues are rarely addressed by the Council.
Donald H. Anderson (3) (3) (1)
Being one of the original employees of the Metropolitan Planning
Commission and being around when it became the Metropolitan Council, I
see the same problem today as then, namely who has more power the
Legislature, the Governor or the local officials in the affected
Counties. Resolving the power structure may be one way of getting back
to the basics.
Robert J. Brown (3) (1) (2)
Question A: If there are changes to be made in either the jurisdiction
of the council or in its planning role it should follow the federal
definition of a Standard Metropolitan Area (formerly SMSA) - an
economically integrated metro area. The problem is that the first
county that should be included based on proximity and economic ties is
St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Unless we are ready for an interstate
compact with the power (and bureaucracy)of the New York Port Authority
I think it is best to leave legal dimensions of the metro area as it
is and concentrate on cooperative planning. Thus a Council of
Governments (COG) approach might be useful.
Question B: We did have a proposal many years ago to make the state
senators in the metro area the members of the Metro Council. This was
passed by the state senate then laid on the table, because (to no
one's surprise) the House ignored the bill.
Question C: I think if the Metro Council had a strong planning role
(enforced by the ability to review local plans including those of the
metro transit, etc. and some economic carrots or sticks) we would be
better off, especially of they were coordinated with a new state
planning agency with similar powers for the rest of the state.
Robert A. Freeman (1) (1) (1)
Question A: This should be introduced as a bill and debated in a
public forum at the Legislature so the counties can weigh in.
Question B: No-one knows who their soil/water commissioners are and
this would be no different - if elected, they will be swayed by
partisan politics and lose long-term focus.
Question C: Clearly rescinding this authority would be a step
Gene Franchett (2) (2) (1)
Wayne Jennings (2) (1) (1)
Terry Stone (1) (3) (2)
Question A: This response is a statement of governance preferences
only. The Council is one of Minnesota’s two examples of large-scale
government within a government; the other being the IRRRB. Aside from
the organizational flowcharts of authority, this form of governance is
a formula for more complicated transparency and accountability. These
governments within a government seem to be easier targets for special
interests. Within this framework, smaller is better.
Question B: Since I view the Council as a government within a
government, it makes no sense for the people to be directly electing
two governments. A Council composed of city and county officials
retains some local accountability to the voters.
Question C: This seems more consistent with my governance philosophy.
Al Quie (1) (2) (2)
Paul Hauge (2) (2) (1)
Connie Morrison (1) (1) (2)
Keith Swenson (1) (3) (2)
The Met Council should be disbanded and its responsibilities returned
Tom Swain (2) (2) (1)
Carolyn Ring (2) (1) (1)
I do not think the members should be elected as it will get "lost" on
the already too long ballot. Metro Council members should have a wide
understanding of the problems and work without prejudice for their
John Nowicki (_) (2) (2)
Tim Olson (1) (2) (2)
David Broden (1) (1) (2)
Option A1: The current Metro Council should remain as is--but the
emphasis should be on the reconsideration and restart of the overall
state regional councils that were once established under the
leadership of State Senator Gordon Rosenmeier of Little Falls. If the
state regions were to be recreated and then the boundaries of the
various regions addressed to consider coordination across the regions
including across the boundaries with the metro council the need to
address the moving boundaries of the metro segments as considered in
items 2,3,4 etc. below would be properly addressed. Further by having
a state regional concept for the council concept the flow of state
planning information would be more effective and yield well thought
out results. The current situation with 87 counties and the mix of
limited capability in the counties would in fact be strengthened with
an effective statewide regional group--as a top level then the
coordination of the regional councils could be the structure of the
overall state planning agency--seem to me to be a very logical
approach that should be introduced and discussed in detail. The key
selling point would be that this approach maintains local control
while providing for coordination of planning and recognition of needs
of each of the regions to gain support and related action.
Option A2: If this is started where does it end? The best alternative
is to create regional councils across the entire state and coordinate
across regional council borders.
Option A3: It will not work to allow one group to just keep moving to
impact another without some common purpose and organization.
Option A4: the metro council must remain but other regional councils
must be created--the councils must coordinate--and a top level state
planning council or some other title should be created.
Option B1: The council should be appointed by the
governor--consideration of staggered terms should be addressed.
Another thought should be that the governor appoints all of the
members but the candidates to be appointed should be selected as
The number of members of the council may be increased to 2 per each
segment or region represented by the council. The governor should
identify candidates and from this group he should select 1
representative from each region.
In addition the cities and other appropriate jurisdictions should
identify up to 3 additional names for each area and the governor
should select 1 additional member from this list. This is a somewhat
indirect representation without asking for a full citizen vote.
Option C2: The metro and related statewide regional councils must
become the visionary leaders to project and establish a vision for the
state and the specific area. The council cannot be both a short term
operation focus group which is basically a manager and a long term
visionary shaping the future. The greater need is to look to the
future with other groups addressing management of the current and near
Jan Hively (3) (1) (1)
Sheila Kiscaden (2) (1) (1)
Donna Anderson (2) (1) (1)
Jim Keller (2) (2) (2)
Andy Driscoll (2) (2) (2)
After reading a summary of the meeting with Jim Solem and Nacho Diaz,
I'm struck by the lack of advocacy for rail transit as one of the
important tools to guide the future (major) growth of the Metro
population. The same arguments that were used by the Metro Council and
Citizens League to kill light rail transit in 1973-78 are still being
trotted out. Imagine the impact on randomized sprawl, air pollution,
global warming, and wasting of energy that could have been ameliorated
with a more enlightened approach.
Meanwhile, nearly every other major metro area continues to plan and
build rail transit, claiming all of the Federal funds available, so
that if we ever do decide that we're not so unique here in Gopherland
that we can do without rail transit, the money will be gone and we'll
be far behind the rest of the country (and Europe). I wish there were
an honest brokerage for this dissenting opinion!
Scott Halstead (1) (2) (1)
The Metropolitan Council reports to the Governor and is unresponsive
to the citizens of the metropolitan area. Governors come and go, have
different perspectives and experiences with the metro area. They don't
run on a platform of how they will oversee the Metropolitan Council.
The legislators and local officials have circumvented transit
selection/ and now we have counties not participating which will be
detrimental to them and the entire metro area.
Metropolitan Government needs to be revisited including roles,
responsibilities, authorities, governance, communications, area,
adjacent counties, growth, financing and oversite by a respected Twin
Cities civic organization.
Chris Brazelton (3) (3) (1)
The reality is that I as a rural citizen of this state have no
connection to the metro council other than their ability to reach into
my pocket via legislative recommendations. I have solidly opposed the
commuter light rail as far too labor intensive and having far too
great a footprint upon the land. I supported monorail as it was
lighter, went over auto traffic, and would be less costly to maintain.
Lyall Schwarzkopf (2) (1) (1)
When I was Chair of the Long range planning and research division of the
in 1991-93, I proposed that the Council ask the legislature to expand
its boundaries to include the Metropolitan Statistical area. We will
need to work out a joint powers arrangement with Wisconsin to
accomplish this. I also proposed that if the operating agencies of
sewer and the bus system become part of the Council, that they be set
up as subsidiaries of the Council similar to corporations that operate
a number of different companies. This could help the Council continue
to be more of a planning agency.