What’s wrong with the Met Council and Minnetrista?

What’s wrong with Minnetrista and the Met Council? One little word, “may,” that appears in our 2040 Comprehensive Plan mandated by the Met Council. Here’s the sentence: “The City of Minnetrista…will not permit activity that may conflict with the Metropolitan System Policy Plans.” That little word, “may,” tacitly gives the Met Council the right to shut down absolutely anything, any activity, they think “may” conflict with their plans, now or in the future. This overly vague term is intentional and designed to make Minnetrista comply with this unelected body’s vision of what it should be.

Whats wrong with Met CouncilWatch this excellent history lesson on the Met Council and how they’ve grown from a small, regional governing body for water & sewer to usurping local control over your city. I’ve asked the city council to consider removing this word from our 2040 Comprehensive Plan before adopting it.

 

Preliminary tax levy increased 5.87% and 2040 Comp Plan to come back for study

Monday was a long night for the city council with a full and challenging agenda. Unfortunately for Minnetrista taxpayers the council chose to adopt (4 to 1) the highest increase (5.87%) presented by staff for the 2020 preliminary tax levy, despite having hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been sitting in unused special funds for years with no foreseeable liabilities against them. We continue to raise taxes and debt special fundswhile cannibalizing our fund reserves, all the while having access to these public funds which, in my opinion, belong in our general fund reserves to give an accurate view of the city’s balance sheet. If the city needs to buy trees we can budget for them. If the city needs to purchase additional emergency sirens we can budget for them. Setting up “special funds” keeps this money out of the public’s view and, more importantly, out of the general fund and gives a distorted view of the city’s finances, which is used to justify tax increases year after year.

The preliminary levy increase may be lowered before the final levy adoption in December but it cannot increase any higher. December 2, 2019 was the date set last night for public comment on the 2020 final levy adoption. You’ll hear some council members defend their votes citing that the preliminary increase was reduced last year before the final levy was adopted. What you won’t be told is that it was done without cutting a single penny of spending and irresponsibly dipping into our general fund reserves.

The city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan was on the agenda for final approval Monday night. I had some serious concerns about it noted here having to do with private wells, GreenStep Cities, inaccurate numbers projecting future water demand, and making commitments to revise or adopt future ordinances without the council having access to the wording of these ordinances. Council agreed to bring the plan back to a work session in October for discussion.

 

MN Cities beware of GreenStep program

Minnesota cities need to beware of the GreenStep Cities Program.

First they need to know that although it is promoted as being funded by nonprofits, foundations and grants, in order to promote sustainability, the fact that the primary funding source for the program is the Met Council is left out of their presentation. The GreenStep Cities website lists all the nonprofits that supposedly promote the program but what they don’t tell you is the Met Council funds all the staff positions in these organizations that promote the GreenStep Cities program.

GreenStep Met CouncilGreenStep lures unsuspecting Mayors and Councilmembers with promises of recognition, awards and eligibility for grants if they follow the “steps” which are designed to replace local autonomy over a city’s planning process and turn it over to the Met Council, a central planning authority of unelected officials with taxing authority that is known for its overreach and insatiable desire to expand it’s base.

GreenStep sample ordinances are designed for more central government control over building regulations and private property use. Based on Agenda 21/Kyoto Protocol (that part is left out too) these recommended ordinances guide cities to restrict economic development to their strict guidelines, impose mandatory building codes for residential and commercial development and restrict land use which all drive up the already exorbitant costs of affordable housing.

A resolution signed by the city council is required to enroll in the program to qualify for awards at the League of Minnesota Cities annual meeting. Once the resolution is signed it is mandatory the city provide Met Council access to the data it collects implementing each “step.” Some of this data collected will likely be municipal, commercial and residential energy usage. That raises some serious privacy issues.

The City of Plymouth was ready to enroll in the program last month with a proposed resolution on their consent agenda. After pulling the item from the consent agenda and listening to several speakers articulate their concerns about GreenStep Cities, the council decided to take no action that evening.

This is not a program to casually enter into without understanding the ramifications on privacy and local government autonomy. Of course cities should implement best practices to conserve energy, promote recycling and plan development. They are free to review and implement any of the GreenStep Cities “steps” if they really make sense for their city without signing anything. The best council decisions are based on what’s best for constituents, not awards and recognition. The grants come with strings as well. Let’s hope cities do their homework on this before passing a resolution they’ll regret.

 

GreenStep Cities Red Flags

GREENSTEP CITIES RED FLAGS: Mayor Whalen invited a representative from the GreenStep Cities program to address the city council last August. Enticed by the lure of recognition and their seemingly benevolent mission, “Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their sustainability and quality-of-life goals,” it gained legs with staff and was advocated again at the city council’s strategy meeting in February.

When the GreenStep representative was asked last August about where their funding came from they said it was primarily nonprofits, foundations, and grants. What they failed to disclose is they have two major funders, one of which is the Met Council. And we all know the Met Council’s allegiance to local government autonomy.
GreenStep Met CouncilRed flag number one: Not being transparent when asked a direct question about funding sources.

In conversations over the weekend I learned from one of our state legislators that the GreenStep Cities program is “Repackaged from what was formerly known as Agenda 21 (for the 21st Century) GreenStep appears to be an obfuscated friendlier name for the same thing.”

Those unfamiliar with the United Nations Agenda 21 need only know it didn’t receive a warm welcome in the United States, with states passing resolutions condemning it and one even passed legislation prohibiting government involvement in the program.

Red flag number two: Changing the organization name when it’s reputation is exposed as undermining federal, state, and local autonomy.

The GreenStep Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from several nonprofits that are all climate change evangelists working together with the University of Minnesota, League of MN Cities, and various state agencies.

GreenStep Steering CommitteeRed flag number three: Human caused climate change is a controversial topic and there is no diversity represented on the steering committee.

This is not a program that will benefit the Minnetrista electorate. In fact, the sample ordinances they provide to cities appear to be designed for more government control over building regulations and private property use.

No award from the League of MN Cities is worth this.