Months after blasting a Metropolitan Council transportation plan they believe neglects their needs, the Twin Cities’ five strictly suburban counties are taking their fight against the agency to a new level.

The Met Council’s transportation advisory board is “stacked in favor of Hennepin and Ramsey counties,” says Carver County Commissioner Randy Maluchnik, who has served on it for six years. Carver and Scott counties have just one vote each among the board’s 33, even though the two counties are expected to have the fastest growth in the metro area for the next several years.

Carver, Anoka, Dakota, Scott and Washington counties have been frustrated with the board’s makeup for years.

Now they want to do something about it. Carver County will lead a lobbying effort at the Legislature next year to change the transportation board, which helps direct millions in federal dollars to transportation projects. The other counties say they support Carver and may take more formal positions on seeking reforms.

In addition to arguing that they’re underrepresented on the transportation board, the five counties believe it has too many unelected officials.

“They’re not accountable to constituents,” said Matt Look, an Anoka County commissioner who serves on the board.

Several board members are appointed by the Met Council, itself a state-run agency made up of the governor’s appointees.

“You wind up with this large voting block hand-picked by the Met Council making the decisions,” said Scott County Administrator Gary Shelton.

“As a result, [the transportation board] becomes a mirror of the Met Council … and a rubber stamp of Met Council staff.”

Adam Duininck, a Minneapolis Met Council appointee, says the board functions well under its existing structure, given the challenge of balancing urban and suburban interests and elected and nonelected members.

“There are some who think that … Hennepin and Ramsey are not represented enough in terms of their population, jobs, and tax base as a share of the region,” Duininck said.

Criticizing plan for 2040

The legislative initiative follows months of tension between the Met Council and outer reaches of the metro area over the council’s overall development plan, Thrive MSP 2040.

In September, the five suburban counties took the unusual step of collectively criticizing Thrive’s draft transportation plan at a joint meeting with Met Council leaders.

The five counties believe it focuses too much on transit and nonmotorized transportation in the inner ring at the expense of highways in the outer reaches.

In Anoka County, that includes improvements to Hwy. 10, where some segments have unusually high numbers of serious accidents, Look said. “It’s built to 1993 standards, and it’s been neglected,” he said.

Shelton says the plan ignores needed upgrades on Hwy. 169, a key corridor for grain and other freight traffic in Scott County.

There’s a huge pot of money potentially in play. About $150 million in federal transportation funding is expected to be handed out in 2018 and 2019, according to Met Council spokeswoman Bonnie Kollodge.

What the counties want

Carver County will ask the Legislature to eliminate eight “citizen members” appointed to the transportation board by the Met Council. The county also wants to have the transportation board pick its own chairman rather than having the Met Council name one. Carver commissioners have nominated Maluchnik for the post — a choice endorsed by the other suburban counties.

In November, Met Council Chair Susan Haigh refused the counties’ request for another joint session but said council representatives could meet with county boards individually.

Washington County had a productive meeting with Met Council representatives this month, according to Commissioner Fran Miron, who serves on the council’s transportation board.

He said the council agreed to include development of the Gateway Corridor, the transit link being developed along Interstate Hwy. 94 from the eastern end of Woodbury to downtown St. Paul, in the long-term transportation plan, he said.

Shelton said Scott County plans to meet with Met Council representatives in January.

But he and Miron are disappointed that the council won’t meet again with the counties collectively to discuss broader concerns over regional balance in the transportation plan.

“They don’t want to give the five counties credibility,” Shelton said.

The Met Council’s Duininck said much of the five counties’ concern over the transportation plan comes from “a fundamental misunderstanding on how roads and bridges as well as transit projects are funded.”

Too staff-driven?

John Gunyou, a citizen member of the transportation board, said much of the technical information on transportation issues is first handled by the Met Council staff.

“Much of what is brought to us is pretty well cooked,” Gunyou said. It creates the possibility of Met Council policies being too staff-driven, he said.

Gunyou is chairman of the Three Rivers Park District, one of the metro area public agencies — including those in the five outer counties — that recently criticized the Met Council’s latest blueprint for metro area regional parks.

Gunyou notes that all members of the Met Council’s parks advisory committee are appointees.

“It’s even less representative [than the transportation board,]” he said. “I think there should be a debate about the entire structure of the council and committees.”