Laserfiche WebLink
1967 to coordinate "the planning and development" of the <br />Metropolitan Area. The Council, as initially established, was <br />mostly advisory but was given some direct authority and <br />responsibility for regional policy development and coordination <br />in the areas of wastewater treatment and disposal, transportation <br />and airports. The Council was given limited approval authority <br />for development proposals which were of metropolitan (regional) <br />significance. The Council, in its infancy, was given no direct <br />operational authority and instead the Legislature created two new <br />Metropolitan Commissions (MWCC and MTC) and restructured the MAC <br />to actually operate and provide those services. In subsequent <br />sessions, the Metropolitan Council's authority and responsibility <br />was expanded to include regional parks and open space, solid <br />waste, regional review authority over certain types of federal <br />grant applications, approval authority over controlled access <br />highways and approval authority over certain elements <br />(airports, transportation, parks and open space, and sewers) -f <br />local comprehensive plans. however, the Council was not given <br />operational or implementation authority in these areas. There <br />was one expeption to this general division of responsibility: the <br />Council was given regional HRA operational authority but the <br />Council can only operate this; authority in a city at the request <br />of that city. <br />The funding for the Metropolitan Council and the regional <br />agencies has also evolved over the period of time and is a <br />mixture of property taxes, user fees and state and federal <br />grants. Except for user fees, the Legislature has retained <br />control over the maximum tax rates and the metro agencies cannot <br />adjust these rates upward. The Legislature also retains control <br />over grants thru its biennial appropriation process. <br />C-1 POLICY PLANNING - POLICY IMPLEMENTATION <br />The historic legislative intent concerning separation of <br />responsibility for mett*lipolitan (regional) policy planning and <br />policy implementation lthuld be reAffirmed. <br />THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD BE A PLANNING AND COORDINATING <br />BODY; AND REGIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS SHOULD <br />BE CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE EXISTING METROPOLITAN AGENCIES AND/OR <br />GENERAL PURPOSE UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. <br />C-2 METROPOLITAN STRUCTURE AND STRUCTURAL RELATIONSHIPS <br />The structure of Metropolitan Governance that ha-- evolved over <br />the last 16 years is basically satisfactory. The structure and <br />relationships between the Metropolitan Council and the various <br />Metropolitan Commission.; and Agencies are not uniform an <br />function determines form. Ma,or• :J.ructural changes are not needed <br />