The Metropolitan Council reaches its 50th anniversary this week, but don't expect much public celebrating for an agency under siege.
Decades after state leaders created the unique regional entity to grapple with issues spanning the metro area's 188 cities and towns — from long-term planning to sewer service — Republican legislators who bristle at its power have made reining it in a priority. Some would like to disband it altogether.
Supporters point to results from the Twin Cities' experiment in regional governance, from cheap wastewater treatment to a reliable transit system and expansive regional parks. But even those seemingly straightforward missions can be fraught with tensions between local desires and regional needs that have made the council a controversial body over its history.
What kind of transit should we have, and who will pay for it? Where should sewer pipes foster the region's outward growth? Should a council of 17 gubernatorial appointees require cities to accommodate affordable housing?
It's attracted a wide array of opinions, sometimes from polar opposite perspectives.
"The Met Council did a pretty good job the first 20 years of its existence meeting its goals," said Myron Orfield, a University of Minnesota researcher and former DFL legislator who shaped the current structure of the Met Council. "And then it kind of came apart."
Orfield is among the camp that would like to see the council flex its authority, especially in pushing for more affordable housing in the wealthy suburbs, clustering job centers, and dissuading development outside the sewer boundaries.
Former Met Council Member Annette Meeks, appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, pointed to a Met Council program authorized by the Legislature in the 1990s that awards millions of dollars a year in grants to cities that agree to set goals for affordable housing.