Loading...
A-2. Metropolitian Governance ReformMEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Mayor & City Council CHMNSCN FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 7700 Market Boulevard DATE: February 22, 2016 ws ` PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Metropolitan Governance Reform Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 A coalition of county and city leaders from the suburban metropolitan area, who are Fax: 952.227.1110 concerned with the lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, are Building Inspections requesting the city's support for improving the metropolitan governance in the Twin Phone: 952.227.1180 Cities. The coalition's objective for its collective effort to improve governance are: Fax: 952.227.1190 Senior Center 1. Twin Cities Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Phone: 952.227.1125 Reform. Fax: 952.227.1110 2. Proposed Coalition Resolution supporting Principles for Reform. 3. Memo from Patricia Nauman, Executive Director, Metro Cities, dated February Website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 12, 2016 outlining Metro Cities Policy Position. 4. Additional supporting information. g:\admin\tg\metropolitan council refonn\cc work session item 02-22-2016.docx Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance -as Engineering represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the PFax:952.227.1170 Metropolitan Council. Fax: 952.227.1170 2. To align local government interests behind a reform effort -through formation Finance of a broad coalition of metropolitan cities and counties -and a common Phone: 952.227.1140 position. Fax: 952.227.1110 3. To be prepared for any efforts -legislative and otherwise -to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Park &Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 The coalition also developed six principles for metropolitan council reform based on Fax: 952.227.1110 the group's core statement of belief (see attachment #1). Based on this information, Recreation Center the coalition is asking the City of Chanhassen to consider adopting the attached 2310 Coulter Boulevard resolution that includes their six principles (see attachment #2). Like any good Phone: 952.227.1400 debate, the Metro Cities Board does not support the suggested changes short of Fax: 952.227.1404 staggered terms and modifications to the selection process for Metropolitan Council members. The selection process should more fully involve local officials (see Planning & Natural Resources attachment #3). Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on how they would like to proceed with the suggested changes to the Metropolitan Governance Reform Public Works proposals. 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 ATTACHMENTS Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center 1. Twin Cities Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Phone: 952.227.1125 Reform. Fax: 952.227.1110 2. Proposed Coalition Resolution supporting Principles for Reform. 3. Memo from Patricia Nauman, Executive Director, Metro Cities, dated February Website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 12, 2016 outlining Metro Cities Policy Position. 4. Additional supporting information. g:\admin\tg\metropolitan council refonn\cc work session item 02-22-2016.docx Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 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. 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 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. 2 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? 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 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; Il. 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. Gerhardt, Todd 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. • 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. • A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight. 1 �yy� �� %�acP7 T 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@metrocitiesmn.org Sincerely, Patricia Nauman Executive Director Metro Cities Office of County Commissioners Carver County Government Center Human Services Building 602 East Fourth Street CARV Chaska, MN 55318-1202 COUNTY Phone: 952 361-1510 Fax: 952 361-1581 February 8, 2016 Carver County City Mayors Dear Mayor: The Carver County Board of Commissioners, along with other suburban metropolitan counties, have become increasingly concerned with the lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, especially considering its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has continued to expand. Two County Board members, our County Administrator and Denny Laufenburger, Chanhassen City Mayor, along with other county and city leaders, recently developed the attached principals for reform and are seeking your support. We believe that an updated Metropolitan Governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit Carver County. On behalf of the Carver County Board of Commissioners, I am asking that your City consider adopting the attached Resolution that calls for a substantive change to the Council. I also enclose a question and answer sheet that should address many of the concerns raised and clarifies our intent. If you would like additional information or have questions, please contact me or one of the other County Board members. Please return the adopted Resolution to County Administrator David Hemze by March 8th or as early as possible given your Council meeting schedule. Thank you in advance for your support and consideration. Sincerely, James Ische, Chair Carver County Board of Commissioners Enclosures cc: Carver County City Administrators 14HAe'AR01� Y -q 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 www.dakotacounty.us 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, Jeff Joh on Rhonda Sivarajah Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Anoka County Board of Commissioners Matt Look S/County Anoka County Board of Commissioners Aoard of Commissioners jZj Brian Kirk am Bethel City Council TomCman Ca ry r County Board of Commissioners Nancy Scho eiler Dakota County Board of Commissioners Rand4al ik Carver County Board of Commissioners Denny 7Laenburger Mayor, City of Channassen Lizork n Dakota unty Board of Commissioners C- , yjj�-� ( I K�Uv�'- Chris Gerlach Mike Franklin Dakota County Board of Commissioners Jordan City Council I)c -24 ('� / S / (1, Mike Beard ` Jhdn l ric Scott County Board of Commissioners Scott County Board of Commissioners Enclosures: 3 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 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 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 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 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. Maricopa Association of Governments 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. j 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. 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 (;nvPrnmPnts 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. 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 Planning The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Committee Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Mankato/North Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Planning Organization Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the Grand Forks - East Grand Forks planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Metropolitan Planning Organization 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. Fargo -Moorhead Metropolitan 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 Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Metropolitan Council 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 Planning The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Committee Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Mankato/North Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Planning Organization Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives.