lllllllllll! - 84th Minnesota Legislature · sota desirable. This requires the state to articulate a unified statement of what Minnesota wants for its future. • Lack oflocal plans.

This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp ;. . .

" , 9,', 5,'0,',"4' '""1 -t '" ( ;.1_ 'LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY

..H!f1i~i~ilfl~l~l\il\lllllllllll! .3 0307 00052 7799 r. "

,'A.Proce

II,

.1

,i .

. '. ...',

'.' .'• • • I. •

.' '.

" " ,Minnesota'SustainableDevelopment Initiativ~ ," , " . "

" " '. October 1994 " I, \.

He~I 07

.1"'163, 5 Ei 7

, , ,The MinnesotaEnvironniental Qua~ity Bo~~d'is ah environmental policy fo~rum. Its membership' consists ofthe headsofnine state environmental.agencies,

, ,five citizens and a l'epresentative, of the G9vernor servIng as

ontentsSummary 1

Introduction 4

Minnesota's Changing Landscape 5

A Challenge for the Future 13

Designing the Future 22

ummaA study of the relationship betweenland use and nonpoint source pollutionin Minnesota, A Question ofBalance:Managing Growth and the Environ-lnent, found that unplanned and poorlymanaged development in Minnesotaresults in significant environmentaland fiscal costs. It concluded thatMinnesota's state and local frameworkfor planning and managing land usechange is fragmented and uncoordi-nated. Many areas are unprepared toplan for the growth and change in theircommunities. Multiple entities at alllevels of government make critical de-cisions affecting land use withoutregard for their broader consequences.Many issues are regional, yet there isno consistent management approach todeal with relevant environmental, in-frastructure or social needs that crosslocal political boundaries.

If Minnesota is to secure the goals ofenvironmental quality and thrivingcommunities envisioned in MinnesotaMilestones, the state must adopt a morecomprehensive approach to land useand resource protection.

The Minnesota Sustainable Develop-ment Initiative provides the basis forthis new approach to managing Minne-sota's land and community resources.Planning for sustainability forces Min-nesotans to ask whether they can meettheir needs today without impedingfuture generations from meeting theirs.Planning can help avoid future prob-lems - it is costly to clean up pollutionafter it occurs, and some environmen-tal damage is irreversible. Tightbudgets and finite natural resources re-quire state and local governments toplan wisely for change.

And change surely will come. Popu-lation trends will have profoundeffects:

III Minnesota's population has grownby more than 7 percent per decadesince 1970.

III The state has 44 percent morehousing units in 1990 than in 1970.

III Population growth is expected toslow slightly to around 6 percent perdecade for the next 30 years, withmuch of the new growth occurringwithin or just outside the seven-countymetropolitan area.

III Some areas of the state outside ofthe metropolitan area will see explo-sive growth - greater than 40 percentin the next 30 years.

III Other areas of the state will con-tinue to lose population but will facequestions of land use changes, serviceprovision and infrastructure utiliza-tion.

Both state and local governments willneed to meet the challenges thesechanges present. The Growth Manage-ment Project identified five key issueareas that limit Minnesota's ability toachieve sustainable communities:

III Lack of statewide policies andgoals. State and local governmentsmake land use decisions without clearpolicy direction from the state. Popu-lation increases, land use changes andgrowth put pressure on all systems,accentuating the need for coordinateddecision-making to preserve and en-hance the elements that make Minne-

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

III As more developmenttakes place, wise use of ourland, water, forests and farmland is dependent on thought-ful planning. - Elected official,Crow Wing County

III I feel that developmentpressures must be controlledand channeled for the sake ofour environment and our farmland especially....A completerethinking of these issues islong overdue. - Citizen,Ramsey County

sota desirable. This requires the stateto articulate a unified statement ofwhat Minnesota wants for its future.

• Lack of local plans. Many com-munities do not have up-to-datecomprehensive or land use plans thatarticulate their goals and strategies fordevelopment and guide local decision-making. As a result, local governmentsmust often react to unexpected envi-ronmental and financial problemsfrom poorly planned or unmanagedgrowth. Official controls such as zon-ing often are updated or changedwithout guidance from a comprehen-sive plan, even though plans form thelegal basis of controls. The need forcomprehensive planning is under-scored by the fact that the fastestgrowing areas of Minnesota are someof the most sensitive to resource deg-radation from growth-related land-usechanges.

• Inadequate plans. To be effectiveguides for decision-making, plansmust be comprehensive and realistic.In Minnesota, state law provides littleguidance on what local plans shouldcover and what management ap-proaches are appropliate to meet localand state goals. Local governmentsneed information regarding environ-mental, social and economic conditionsto make realistic decisions about landuse changes.

• Interjurisdictional conflicts. Pres-sures ofpopulation growth, significantstatewide and regional resources andmany other issues often do not fol-low political boundaries. This canlead to conflicts among local units ofgovernment and inadvertent effects onresources. These problems can beminimized through local governmentcooperation, yet there are few incen-tives for coordination.

2 COMMUNITIES BY DESIGN

• Inconsistent implementation andenforcement. State and local plans andregulations are not always applied con-sistently. Many communities lack thefinancial, technical and informationresources to implement and enforceexisting regulations and make consis-tent land use decisions. Public supportof planning and land use controls re-quires a better understanding of theimpact of lifestyle choices. Plans de-veloped with local input and backed bycredible information provide a firm le-gal and ethical basis for makingdifficult decisions.

To overcome these bamers, the GrowthManagement Project sought input frommore than 500 local government offi-cials, state agency staff, and citizens.From those discussions came a set ofrecommended goals for land use man-agement in the state:

• State, local and regional planningin Minnesota will be guided by a com-mon set of policies and goals.

• All parts of the state will be gov-erned by up-to-date comprehensiveplans.

• Plans will adequately address en-vironmental, economic and socialneeds.

• Planning will be coordinated toavoid conflicts and recognize nonlocalimpacts of development.

• Plans and ordinances will be con-sistently applied across jurisdictionsand priority areas.

To meet these goals, this report setsforth specific strategies for creating acollaborative, statewide, integratedframework for planning and land usemanagement. These strategies stem

from the findings of the SettlementTeam of the Minnesota SustainableDevelopment Initiative and the inputof participants in the Growth Manage-ment Project. They call for planningat all levels of government, with ap-propriate incentives and linkages toensure greater coordination. Citizen in-volvement in the decision-makingprocess must be guaranteed and en-couraged.

State Level

The first and crucial part of theplanning framework would be thedevelopment of an integrated state planand guidelines for local planning. Thestate plan should outline statewidegoals and priorities for state and localdecision-making. This presupposes anopen and inclusive planning process,so the plan reflects what Minnesotanswant for the state. Planning guidelinesfor local governments would follow,with local government participatingfully in their development. Stateagencies would provide informationand coordinated assistance to supportlocal planning efforts. In addition, stateagencies would ensure that agencyplans and actions conform to the statestrategic plan.

Areawide or Regional Level

Part of the integrated state plan wouldinclude criteria for delineating areasthat have urgent planning needs, suchas growing areas susceptible to ground-water contamination. Jurisdictions inthese priority planning areas woulddevelop joint plans or binding goalsfor the system that prompted the pri-0rity designation. Planning wouldcontinue to be required in the metro-politan area, under the guidance of thestate priorities and goals and the Met-

ropolitan Council. The state wouldprovide incentives for local govern-ments to work together in managinglocal issues, and other regional ap-proaches would be encouraged.

Local Level

Under the strategies, all counties willdevelop comprehensive plans, adher-ing to state goals and guidelines.Cities in priority planning areas willplan as well, guided by state goals andguidelines. Local governments thatregulate land use will have to upgradeplans and ordinances as necessary sothat they are consistent with one an-other and statewide goals and policies.Guidebooks and interactive computeraids will provide help for this plan-mng.

Intergovernmental relationsand appeals

To ensure cooperation and coordinationin plan preparation and implementation,local governments will consult withneighboring jurisdictions during theplanning process. An appeals bodywill be established to mediate disputesamong local units of governmentdeveloping plans and, when asked,rule on consistency of plans andactions with state and local plans.

Communities by Design presents anoverview of Minnesota's changinglandscape and the governmental, en-vironmental and economic issuessurrounding land use and communitydevelopment. It recommends a newapproach for achieving sustainablecommunities in Minnesota. It presentsgoals for the state to meet in five broadissue areas and suggests specific strat-egies to implement those goals.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 3

II Growth should be con-centrated where infrastructureis adequate. Rural areas arebeing ruined by sprawl.Minnesota's countryside is itsgreatest and most abusedasset. - Citizen, WinonaCounty

IntroductionMinnesota's communities are chang-ing continually. New houses, roadsand shopping centers are altering theway they look and feel. How Minne-sota manages change - in its landuse, population and economy - in-fluences the health of the environment,the economic vitality of the state andthe quality of life for all its citizens.Minnesota does not have an overallapproach to manage these changeswhile safeguarding the state's valuableassets - forests, agricultural lands,lakes and ground water - for futuregenerations.

Minnesota Milestones, created in1992 with the help of thousands ofcitizens, articulates a vision for com-munities in the state. It calls foreconomically vibrant cities and towns,revitalized small towns and rural ar-eas, the preservation of viable farmsand resource-based industries, attrac-tive and clean communities, clear airand water and plenty of open space.In this vision, urban growth will bemanaged to conserve resources andenhance the quality of life whilepreserving rural Minnesota. The Min-nesota Sustainable DevelopmentInitiative - a statewide effort to re-define how Minnesota integratessocial needs, environmental qualityand economic development - haslaid important groundwork for achiev-ing this vision. This report advancesmany of the strategic directions estab-lished through the Initiative.

The protection and management ofMinnesota's natural resources are of


interest to all citizens, not just thosewho live near them or profit by theiruse. Minnesotans share a compellinginterest in designing communities thatreflect their collective vision. While thestate has the responsibility to protectthose interests, it also has an obliga-tion to foster and participate in acollaborative process to make that vi-sion a reality. Ultimately, citizens willdetermine the future of their local com-munities and the larger community ofthe state.

This report presents recommendedgoals for achieving an integrated, co-operative and comprehensive processfor Minnesota communities to defineand reach a more sustainable future. Itsuggests specific strategies to achievethose goals, including the developmentof a statewide plan and guidelines forlocal planning. Built through a collabo-rative process, these plans will reflectwhat Minnesotans want for their com-munities and the state as a whole.

The aim of this report is to publicizethe challenges facing the state and itscommunities, and to spur discussion ofpossible solutions. The strategies hererepresent one approach for meeting therecommended goals. The developmentof the state plan and planning guide-lines may reveal other strategies forreaching the goals articulated here.However it is done, achieving sustain-able communities will require that localgovernments, state agencies and, mostimportant, citizens work together todecide how the state will develop andchange.

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: Minnesota Planning

Minnesota1sLandscape

Minnesota has seen nearly two de-cades of relatively constant populationgrowth. Growth averaged more than 7percent in the 1970s and 1980s. Hous-ing units have increased by more than44 percent since 1970. The fastestgrowing areas of the state lie in a cor-ridor mnning roughly from Rochesterthrough the Twin Cities and St. Cloudand up into the lakes regions. Mostother areas of the state reached theirpeak populations before World War IIand have been declining ever since.

The growing areas are expected to con-tinue to increase in population, thoughat a slower rate - almost 16 percentbetween 1990 and 2020. Populationgrowth will be most rapid in the TwinCities, Rochester and St. Cloud areas.

Minnesota's population is increasinglysettling in or near urban areas. Re-gional centers, such as Mankato andRochester, continue to grow even asthe surrounding mral areas shrink inpopulation. Despite the trends towardurbanization, growth is increasinglytaking up more land. In the Twin Cit-ies, for example, the populationincreased by 13 percent between 1980and 1990, but land used for residen-tial development increased by 20percent.

This trend toward lower density affectsboth small and large cities. Many free-standing cities of less than 30,000population are seeing declining popu-lation in their urban core combinedwith rapid growth in their suburbanfringe, similar to trends experiencedby the Twin Cities.

hanging

While land use changes are apparentin growing areas, significant changesalso may occur in areas of decliningpopulation. For example, Lake Countyhad a 20 percent population declinebetween 1980 and 1990, due to adownturn in the mining industry.While residential population is declin-ing, however, seasonal or part-timeresidents are increasing, especiallyalong the North Shore. Declining ar-eas also represent undemtilized publiccapital in wastewater treatment plants,highways and other infrastmcture andshrinking budgets for environmentalprotection.

Population Growth Near RegionalCenters 1970 - 1990

Bemidji

Brainerd

Duluth

Grand Rapids

Mankato

Moorhead

Rochester

St. Cloud

Willmar

Winona

II I am against too manygovernment programs, but inthis area I feel it isnecessary. .. Sprawl andleapfrog development must bestopped. - Township official,Scott County

o Areas within 15miles of the centercity (not inclUdingcity)

_ City


The quality of the state's land, waterand air depends on where these landuse changes occur and how they aremanaged. The growing areas of thestate are also areas with fragile envi-ronments. The fractured limestonetopography in southeastern Minnesotaand the sandy soils north and west ofthe Twin Cities make it easier for pol-lution on the surface to reach theground water. Scenic areas such aslakes, rivers and blufflands are primeareas for development but sensitive toerosion and pollution loading fromland use changes. Population growthis increasingly focused on such high-amenity areas.

Among the environmental problemsassociated with growth and develop-ment are:

II Increased urban water runoff. A1991 study of the Lake Bemidji wa-tershed identified urban runoff fromdevelopment within the watershed asa major threat to lake water quality.

II Erosion and sediTnentation. TheMississippi River and its backwatersin Winona and Houston counties arefilling with sediment, attributed to pooragricultural and nonagricultural landmanagement practices.

II Water contamination from on-sitesewage systems. In Sherburne andIsanti counties, the Anoka Sand Plainstudy tentatively linked on-site sew-age systems in several subdivisions toelevated nitrate levels in wells.

II Contaminated ground water fromformerly agricultural lands. Nitrate-contaminatedwellsinseveral subdivisionsin Benton and Sherburne counties arelinked to irrigated farmland.


II Loss offarmland, forests and wet-lands. The state has lost more than200,000 acres of farmland since 1982.Forest land has decreased by 2.2 mil-lion acres in the last 20 years, andnearly two-thirds of the state's 14 mil-lion acres of wetlands have beendrained. These losses were due in largepart to clearing for cropland, but re-cently, urbanization has been a greaterfactor.

Environmental degradation can occurincrementally. Each land-use change,however small, can stress naturalresources, adding up to widespreadproblems that are difficult to fix. Howthe land is used is increasingly recognizedas a factor in protecting environmentalquality.

Poorly managed development imposesfiscal as well as environmental costs.Pollution problems can be costly toclean up, and providing service to newdevelopment can often cost more thanthe tax revenue it creates. Some ex-amples in Minnesota include:

II Continued degradation of LakeBemidji from nonpoint source pollu-tion linked to development could costthe area up to $3 million in tourist-re-lated income.

II In Otsego Township, rapid andpoorly planned development resultedin stormwater flooding problems,which cost the town more than $500,000to fix.

II Winona Township will spend atleast $750,000 to install a sewage treat-ment system for 50 houses within thetownship. The high cost is due in partto the lack of cooperation between thecity of Winona and the township.

Land Use Critical to Environmental Protection

The connection between land use and environmental quality is recog-nized in many state policies and programs. The Minnesota EnvironmentalPolicy Act (Minnesota Statute Chapter 116D.02) recognizes the "pro-found impact of human activity on the interrelations of all componentsof the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of popu-lation growth [and] high density urbanization." It also authorizes theEnvironmental Quality Board to "develop and implement land use andenvironmental policies, plans, and standards for the state as a whole andfor major regions thereof through a coordinated program of planningand land use control. ..."

The land use-environment connection is increasingly recognized inotherstate policies and programs as well. For instance:

11III The Minnesota Water Plan, developed in 1991, concluded that "theland-use connection is a key to management and protection of waterresources .... The [state] must encourage the use of comprehensive wa-ter plans as vehicles for linking environmental protection concerns togrowth management."

11III The state ground water plan prepared by the Pollution Control Agencysuggests that the state "Develop a new statewide land use approach toprotect and manage ground water quality and quantity, recognizing thatlanduse management is the primary tool for ground water protection... strongland use planning efforts are needed with environmental considerationincluded." The plan recommends that "all parts of the state should becovered by up-to-date comprehensive plans."

11III The Settlement Team of the Mimlesota Sustainable Development Ini-tiative concluded that the current system for land use management isfragmented and inadequate to protect natural and economic resources. Itrecommended state goals and countywide planning as part of an "inter-active, integrated decision-making process" for balancing enviromnental,economic and social concerns.

11III The benefits of planningreach beyond the communi-ties that do the planning. Theoverriding concern needs tobe the benefit of the commu-nityas a whole and theenvironment, rather than to afew individuals. - Citizen,Washington County

11III A study of development in WrightCounty found that the difference be-tween the cost of providing servicescompared to the revenue generated bydevelopment is up to four times higherfor rural subdivisions than for devel-opments in more densely settled areaswithin municipal boundaries.

Planning for SustainableCommunities

Many of these problems can be avoidedor mitigated by comprehensive planningthat recognizes the complex interactionbetween social, economic and environ-


Peak Population Years: Historical and Projected

Census Years

D 1940 or Before

D 1950 or 19601970 or 1980

III 2020

Source: State Demographer

Ground Water Contamination Susceptibilityin Minnesota

Lowest susceptibility

Medium susceptibility

Highest susceptibility

Source: MPCAILMIC


mental systems. The challenges facingthe state require a new approach toplanning. The concept of sustainabledevelopment provides a powerful or-ganizing framew011c for state and localdecision-making, balancing the social,economic and environmental needs of acommunity while preserving for futuregenerations the full range of choicesMinnesotans enjoy today.

Achieving sustainable communities re-quires thinking about the future. Whatchanges will the community face? Howshould those be managed? What shouldbe preserved, and how is that done?With or without planning, communi-ties will change. Change does notnecessarily mean growth - areas withdeclining population need to under-stand and plan for those changes aswell. In a community without planning,changes are the result of many un-guided, uncoordinated decisions - bydevelopers, businesspeople, homeowners,industrialists, special district govemmentsand local governments.

Sustainable communities do not hap-pen spontaneously. They are conceivedfrom an inclusive envisioning processand created from deliberate and thought-ful application of appropriate goals andstrategies. A comprehensive plan is anexpression of a state or community'svision and a strategic map to reach it.Comprehensive plans analyze existingeconomic, social and environmentalconditions, and layout the goals andpolicies that will guide future changeand development. They provide the le-gal basis for land use controls, includingzoning and subdivision regulations. Itmakes sense for communities to planfor change in both the short and longterms.

Comprehensive planning - at all lev-els - will advance a broad range of

public interests, such as improving thequality of land use decisions, savingmoney on infrastructure and mainte-nance, and identifying and protectingsensitive natural resources.

Planning will not solve all land useproblems or prevent all poor decisionsBut planning increases the chances thatdecisions will be made in the contextof the community's best interest. In ef-fect, a good planning program adds theextra ingredients to enable communi-ties to function and change moreefficiently.

A Fragmented Response

Minnesota has a haphazard system forland use planning and management.The current system is inadequate toensure protection of the state's re-sources.

At the local level, each city, county or town-ship is given the authority to develop landuse plans and adopt implementation mea-sures, such as zoning or subdivisionregulations. The state provides little guid-ance on what a local government land useplan should address. In addition, it is notclear in the law that local controls must beconsistent with plans or compatible withneighboring jurisdictions.

Disparities in the enabling legislationfor planning and land use controlsexacerbate these problems. Over theyears, the planning and zoning legis-lation for cities, towns and countieshave been changed incrementally, of-ten to satisfy the needs of a singleinterest group. A 1987 report by theGovernor's Advisory Council on State-Local Relations concluded that thesedifferences and piecemeal changescreate an additional barrier to goodplanning and governmental coopera-tion.

The importance of comprehensiveplanning was recognized and widelypromoted in the late 1960 and 1970s.Federal and state funding was avail-able to help local governments plan.The 1976 Metropolitan Land PlanningAct provided new authorities andfunds to solve ongoing environmentaland fiscal problems in theTwin Citiesmetropolitan area. In conjunction withthe act, the state established a planninggrants program for nonmetropolitancommunities to replace dwindling fed-eral dollars, but this program ended inthe early 1980s.

These efforts helped lay the structuralgroundwork for local planning in Min-nesota. Participating jurisdictionsestablished local planning boards andboards of adjustment, and developedzoning and subdivision regulations.But participation was voluntary, somany jurisdictions did not plan orimplement developed plans. Therewere no guidelines from the state orfederal level to ensure consistent plan-ning or coordinate local plans. Finally,the combined efforts of decreased stateand federal resources and increasingpressures on local budgets forcedmany areas to halt planning efforts.

Because comprehensive planning andland use management is, for the mostpart, optional for local governments,it varies widely across the state.

II Ofthe 80 nonrnetropolitan counties,60 have comprehensive land use plans,but only 35 plans have been prepared orupdated since 1980; 63 have zoning or-dinances, 28 use density standards, and69 have subdivision regulations. Incounties without planning and zoning,townships often will plan, which mayresult in a larger number of uncoordi-nated plans.


11III Intergovernmentalrelationships need to beexamined. The state hasvirtually no role in land usemanagement, cities areislands unto themselves,counties have primary author-ity outside of cities andtownships have authorityunder the county umbrella.Are those roles appropriate?- Staff, local governmentassociation

Percent Change in Number ofHousing Units, 1980 - 1990

D Pet. decreaseLess than 10%

10% to 25%

More than 25%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990

Absolute Change in Number ofHousing Units, 1980 - 1990

DDecrease

Source: u.s. Bureau of Census, 1980 & 1990


II There are 715 cities outside themetropolitan area. Twenty-four havepopulations greater than 10.000, butmost have populations less than 500.Many do not have comprehensive orland use plans. In those that do, plansoften are outdated or inconsistent withzoning ordinances.

II Of the 1,761 townships outside ofthe Twin Cities, about 100 have com-prehensive plans, and less than 200have zoning ordinances.

II The Legislature mandated local andregional planning within the metropoli-tan area. There are no such requirementsfor the rest of the state, even thoughgrowth and development occur beyondthe Metropolitan Council borders.

II Since 1980, housing units increasedby13 percent in the state, but units notconnected to a public sewer increased 22percent. Only 48 counties have adoptedcountywide technical standards for on-sitesewer systems, leavingthe constmctionandmaintenance of many on-site systemsumegulated.

II In the late 1960s, 11 regional de-velopment commissions were establishedacrossMinnesota (including theMetropoli-tan Council) to aid regional considerations.Subsequently, RDCs 10 (southeastMinne-sota), 7W (central Minnesota) and 4 (westcentral Minnesota), all in environmentallysensitive areas, were abolished. The Met-ropolitan Council has the authority toguide development in the metropolitanarea. Other RDCs have limited author-ity to align governmental actions withintheir regions.

II Growth outside city limits can re-sult in problems because land usecontrols often are weaker and urbanservices such as sewer and water maynot be available except at great cost.

As a result, development in the urbanfringe area often is a contentious is-sues.

Minnesota's piecemeal approach togrowth management results in incon-sistent resource protection, varyingplans and land use controls, and inter-governmental conflicts. Under thecurrent planning process, communitiescan follow their own goals withouthaving to consider effects on neigh-boring areas. State law and policyprovide little guidance and few incen-tives for cooperation.

At the state level, policies and pro-grams can have different, and sometimescompeting, goals and strategies. Theyare not guided by a clear articulationof the goals the state hopes to achieveand the priorities for state and localaction. State programs can directly orindirectly affect how land is used andhow communities change and develop.Programs with direct effects includethe shoreland management and flood-plain management programs, whichoutline specific practices and actionsin environmentally sensitive areas.Ones with indirect effects include eco-nomic development loan programs andhighway construction projects, whichcan affect growth and demand for ser-vices over broad areas.

Many of these programs have beensuccessful in achieving their program-matic goals. The local water planningprocess that has taken place acrossMinnesota has raised the awareness ofwater protection issues. The state'sShoreland Management, FloodplainManagement and Wild and ScenicRivers programs provide much-neededconsistency for managing develop-ment in those sensitive areas.

But there are limits on the effective-ness of individual programs. Someaddress only pieces of the problem.Shoreland regulations, for instance,only manage land uses within 1,000feet of the lake shore, even though landuse in the rest of the watershed affectslake water quality. Gaps exist betweenprograms, leaving some resources un-protected or underprotected. Forinstance, strong state laws preservingwetlands may push development intoimportant woodland areas.

In the long run, the state may not beable to bear the costs of poorly man-aged settlement. Tightening federaland state budgets do not allow for in-creasedexpenditures on the infrastructureneeded to support widely scattereddevelopment. It is imperative that thestate make an effort to plan for changeto avoid these future costs.

A New Beginning

Over the past several years, Minneso-tans have worked together to fOlIDulatetheir vision for the state. ThroughMin-nesota Milestones, the MinnesotaSustainable Development Initiative,and the Minnesota Economic Blue-print, a consensus is developing onwhat people want for Minnesota's fu-ture. They want prosperity and jobs,but they also are concerned withmounting congestion, dwindling openspace, environmental problems, habi-tat loss and economic stress associatedwith sprawl and unwise development.

The EQB's Growth ManagementProject arose from a series ofquestionsabout the state's ability to reach thesevisions ofMinnesota's future. What arethe environmental impacts of growthand development? What policies are


guiding the choices of where Minne-sotans live and work, and what theircommunities look like? Are publicpolicies adequate to protect the envi-ronment while encouraging economicvitality and efficient investment? Whatnew directions are needed?

The first phase of the Growth Man-agement Project identified the problemswith the current system of land useplanning and management. It definedfive key issues that prevent the statefrom building sustainable communi-ties:

III Lack of statewide polices andgoals

III Lack of plans

III Inadequate plans

III Inteljurisdictional conflicts

III Inconsistent implementation andenforcement

The second phase sought to publicizethesefindings anddevelop recommen-dations for needed changes. Projectstaff consulted with a variety of inter-ests. A group of expert practitioners,scholars and local government offi-cials helped staff fashion a range ofalternative land use policies. Recom-mendations from the Settlement Teamof the Minnesota Sustainable Devel-opment Initiative provided a base onwhich to build. Using presentations,


group meetings and questionnaires,project staff solicited the opinions ofmore than 500 state and local govern-ment officials, citizens and professionalplanners on a range of policy optionsto refine goals and develop possiblestrategies for reaching those goals. Fi-nally, four focus groups were held torefine and clarify the strategies offeredin this report.

The goals and strategies that came outof those discussions represent a chal-lenge to decision-makers. The issuesthey seek to resolve are complex andoften contentious. They call for a newapproach in how the state and localgovernment deal with change and con-flict. State and local governments needto move toward building more sustain-able communities.

The problems identified by the projectare not new. Similar studies in the1970s and 1980s came to many of thesame conclusions. The incrementalchanges in law that followed thosestudies, however, have done little to al-leviate the underlying problems. Thatis why this report recommends moresweeping changes.

It is time to put together a better wayto guide state and local decision mak-ing. Much planning happens in crisis,after a problem has occuned. Minne-sota has the opportunity to avoid thesecrises. The groundwork has been laid;now is the time to follow up.

hallenge for the FutureMinnesota does have an unstatedgrowth and development strategy, im-plicit in a wide range of public andprivate policies that are not alwaysconsistent with one another. The chal-lenge is to develop an explicit andconsistent strategy.

This report presents one way toachieve this. Its recommendations areguided by a set of principles thatshould apply to any efforts to improvethe planning and land use frameworkin Minnesota. These principles are:

III Citizen involvement. Citizen in-volvement in the decision-makingprocess must be guaranteed and en-couraged at all levels of government.

III Collaboration. Any statewide cri-teria and guidelines must be developedwith full input from communitiesacross the state.

III Adequate resources. Adequatefunding and technical assistance willbe needed to improve both state andlocal decision-making.

III Knowledge andeducation. Educationfor both citizens and decision-makerswill be critical to the success of anywidespread planning effort.

III Consistent application. Stateguidelines for planning and implemen-tation must apply to state programs,and state policies and programs mustbe better coordinated.

The Growth Management Projectidentified five key issues that hinderMinnesota's ability to achieve sustain-able communities: a lack of statewide

policies and goals; lack of local plans;inadequate plans; inteljurisdictionalconflicts; and inconsistent implemen-tation and enforcement.

This report offers the Governor, theLegislature and Minnesota citizensstrategies for overcoming these prob-lems and preserving the environmentalquality and economic vitality ofMinnesota's communities. Goals arerecommended for each of the five is-sues, followed by strategies forachieving the goal.

Lack of Statewide Policiesand Goals

State and local governments make landuse and other resource decisions with-out clear policy directions from thestate. Population increases, land usechanges and growth put pressure onall systems. This requires coordinateddecision-making based on a unifiedstatement of what Minnesotans wantfor their future and a strategy to pre-serve and enhance the elements thatmake Minnesota desirable. An inte-grated statewide plan, with overallgoals and guidelines for planning, isneeded to better guide state and localdecision making.

Though Minnesota has excellent en-vironmental protection and resourcemanagement programs and tools, thesecan result in conflicts without the guid-ance of state policies and goals.

Goal: State, local and regional plan-ning in Minnesota will be guided by acommon set of policies and goals.


11II In the development of astatewide land use policy, it isa must to include all parties- state agencies, local unitsof government, interestgroups, land developers,farmers, foresters and mostof all citizens and citizengroups. - Citizen, Pine County

II The existence of compre-hensive plans are meaning-less without guidance fromthe state or region regardinggoals and objectives. Whatare our values in Minnesota?- Citizen, Fillmore County

Costs and Benefits of Statewide Planning

A study of New Jersey's planning process provides one of the most in-depth economic analyses of statewide planning. Implementation of thestate plan was conditioned on a financial cost-benefit analysis. The statehas spent nearly $10 million on the planning program since 1986, includ-ing funds for developing the state plan and providing planning assistanceto local governments. Rutgers University analyzed the projected ben-efits of the planning framework over the next 20 years versus CUlTenttrends. According to the study, benefits of the planning process include:

Financial savingsII $400 million annually for municipalities and school districtsII $740 million in road costs over the 20 yearsII $440 million in water and sewer infrastructure costs

Savings in land used for developmentII 130,000 acres totalII 80 percent fewer acres of frail lands, including lands containing for-ests, steep slopes and critical watershedsII 30,000 acres of agricultural land and nearly 108,000 acres of primeagricultural lands

PollutionII nearly 40 percent fewer water pollutants in storm water

Employment and economic effectsII job creation and economic development not reducedII more jobs created in the urban and rural centers rather than in subur-ban and exurban areas

The analysis concluded that the "Interim State Development and Rede-velopment Plan will bring benefits to New Jersey and its citizens thattraditional development will not. ... [The plan], if carried forth to fruition,will sustain the economy of the State, maintain growth in all regions,redevelop Urban Centers more than they would be under traditional de-velopment conditions and strike an appropriate balance between economicand conservation measures."

II Develop an integrated state planoutlining broad policies and goals toguide state, local and regional plan-ning. The plan should contain unified,integrated goals and policies. In de-veloping these, existing goals andpolicies should be examined to iden-tify and resolve conflicts and unexpected


consequences arising from them. Theplan should contain a clear expressionof what Minnesotans believe is impor-tant to consider and protect in state andlocal planning actions. This could in-clude environmental factors, such ascritical habitat, prime agriculturallands or water quality, and economic

In addition, the plan should containcriteria for identifying "priority plan-ning areas." These are the parts of thestate that are particularly vulnerable tonegative effects of development dueto rapid population growth and envi-ronmental sensitivity. In these areas,local comprehensive planning andstate efforts are most important. Theplan could also identify specific areasof statewide concern, such as theblufflands in southeast Minnesota, anda process for state and local govern-ments to develop a planning vision forthe area.

Finally, the plan should contain a strat-egy for state capital investments thatforwards the state's goals and policies.

• Develop guidelines for compre-hensive plan content and outcomes.Guidelines are needed for overall con-sistency, since local comprehensiveplans will reflect the locality's circum-stances. Although the state providestechnical assistance to local govern-ments for specific programs, noagency or effort is charged with help-ing them integrate all the demands anddirections coming from the state.

Local governments need to participatefully in the development of the guide-lines. The guidelines should not beprescriptive, and should recognize re-gional differences. One solution maynot fit all situations and diverse ap-proaches can accomplish the strategicplanning goals. Guidelines shouldstress desired outcomes and suggestpossible approaches. Local govern-ments should retain the flexibility todevelop specific approaches to achievethe outcomes.

• State agency plans and actionsshould reflect the goals and policiesof the state plan. This will guarantee

that overall goals will not be compro-mised as agencies pursue specificprogram goals. Agency plans alsoshould identify resources of statewidesignificance and outline how they willfocus on priority planning areas.

Local governments and citizensshould have a forum to challenge stateagency plans, programs and actionsthat are believed to be inconsistentwith the state plan. This could be ac-complished through the arbitration andappeals process outlined elsewhere inthese recommendations. In Oregon, acitizen group called 1,000 Friends ofOregon has been instrumental in hold-ing governments accountable forimplementation of the statewide plan-ning goals. An optional strategy wouldbe to charge the body responsible fordeveloping the state plan with review-ing state agency plans for consistency.

• Provide technical assistance forlocal planning. Many units of govern-ment lack expertise in developingcomprehensive plans and the ordi-nances to enforce the plans. In addition,planning for communities based on theprinciples of sustainable developmentis a new venture. Guidebooks devel-oped in the 1970s and early 1980s tohelp local governments understand thesteps to be followed and the issues toaddress are no longer appropriate anddo not incorporate recent changes toMinnesota law. New guides and modelordinances should be developed thatreflect these law changes and the newconcepts and principles of sustainabledevelopment.

Guides should be prepared by Minne-sota Planning in cooperation withother state agencies and local govern-ments. The state should exploredeveloping an interactive computer-based guide.


II There needs to be someplanning standards created atthe state level that wouldprovide a framework for localplanning and assure thatmeaningful strides in thesustainability are made bythis process. -Nonprofit organization, RamseyCounty

III Counties need to under-stand that land use planningcan be used effectivelywithout lots of unreasonablecontrols on land and propertyowners. - Local staff member,Pennington County

lack of local Plans

Many jurisdictions have out-of-dateplans or no plans at all. As a result,local governments often face unex-pected environmental and financialproblems from poorly planned orunmanaged growth. The need for acomprehensive vision is underscoredby the fact that the fastest growing ar-eas of Minnesota also often are somethe most sensitive to resource degra-dation from growth-related land usechanges.

Development of the state plan, alongwith targeted incentives and techni-cal assistance, will do much topromote planning at all levels. But amajority of participants in the GrowthManagement Project indicated thatrequired planning may be needed toensure full coverage and adequate re-source protection. The strategiesbelow reflect that concern.

Goal: All parts of the state will begoverned by up-to-date comprehen-sive plans.

II Prepare and adopt comprehensiveplans and land use management regu-lations in all counties. Counties covera large enough geographical area toaddress many nonlocal effects and yetare small enough to reflect local needsand goals. They provide a logical co-ordinating body for lands in transition,such as urban fringe areas. Many al-ready possess the necessary technicalexpertise.

County plans should reflect statewidepolicies and content guidelines. Thecounty plan should cover all unincor-porated land and serve as a baselinefor townships that choose to plan.Small cities could choose to have thecounty prepare a plan for them as well.


Counties should revise their existingplans as needed to reflect state policies.

The counties should collaborate withboth townships and cities in plan prepa-ration to ensure that their goals arecompatible. Counties should also workclosely with state and federal agenciesto ensure that county plans addresspotential conflicts. Counties should beencouraged to work with tribal govern-ments in planning for all land withinthe county.

II Prepare and adopt comprehensiveplans and land use and managementregulations in designated priority plan-ning areas, including the metropolitanarea. Certain areas wan-ant cooperativeefforts for planning and land use man-agement. These include areas withsignificant population growth or withsensitive or important natural re-sources. Criteria for these priorityplanning areas would be developed aspart of the state plan. The actual areaswould be established through state col-laboration with the counties, cities andtowns that meet the criteria.

All jurisdictions in the pri0l1ty planningareas need to adopt individual comprehen-sive plans. They also should worktogether to develop either joint plansor common goals for those systems thatprompted the pdodty designation. Forexample, if the designation is based onground-water sensitivity, local govern-ments could establish a joint plan forprotecting ground-water quality fromland use changes. Strategies for jointplanning are discussed in the sectionon inter-jurisdictional conflicts.

In those areas designated because ofpopulation growth, joint plans or goalsshould address how the area will ac-commodate the housing, transp0l1ation,and sewer and water and other serviceneeds of new residents. State agencies

Goals Adopted by Other States

Several states have adopted statewide goals to guide the developmentand implementation of state and local plans. These goals establish statepriorities to align decision-making at all levels while providing flexibil-ity for state and local action. Below are examples of some of these goals.

Washington11II Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequatepublic facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient man-ner.11II Economic development: Encourage economic development through-out the state that is consistent with adopted compre 've plans ... andencourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient omic growth.

atural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural and fisheriesindustlies. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and pro-ductive agricultural lands and discourage incompatible uses.

Oregon11II Land-use planning: To establish a land-use planning process andpolicy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to theuse of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions andactions.11II Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program thatensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of theplanning process.11II Agricultural lands: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.

New Jersey11II Revitalize the state's urban centers by investing wisely and sufficientlyin improvements to their human resources and infrastructure systems toattract private investment.11II Protect the environment by plamling for growth in compact forms atlocations and intensities of use that protect land and water quality, allowexpeditious regulatory reviews and make sufficient transportation alter-natives feasible to help achieve and maintain air quality standards.11II Provide adequate housing at a reasonable cost by planning for loca-tion and density of housing.

would participate in the planning toincorporate their goals and strategiesin the joint plans.

• Review and update plans and regu-lations at least once every five years,as appropriate. Comprehensive plansmust reflect current conditions. A ma-j ority of plans in Minnesota were

adopted before 1980 and have not beenupdated. Zoning ordinances often aremodified to meet changing conditions,but plans are not updated at the sametime. This may undermine the legalbasis of local land use regulations.Regular plan review allows localgovernments to assess plan implemen-


III The central issue is notone of domination or controlbut of responsibility. If acommunity is accommodatingadditional development and ismaking public investments,there is an obligation to havea plan to see what develop-ment and investment deci-sions are coordinated and arein a direction of communitywants. - Citizen, RamseyCounty

tation, modify development strategiesand better predict future conditions.

Inadequate Plans

Many plans developed in the early1970s did not adequately address theinterdependent and complex social,environmental and economic issuesfacing communities. Local plans varywidely. Some jurisdictions haveeffective comprehensive plans andcontrols, while neighboring ones mayhave neither. Local govemments needinformation on environmental, socialand economic conditions to makeinformed decisions about land usechanges.

Goal: Plans will adequately addressenvironmental, economic and socialneeds.

II Make comprehensive plans con-sistent with goals and policies of theintegrated state plan and the guide-lines for comprehensive plan contentand outcomes. State guidelines willhelp ensure that local plans addressissues of statewide, as well as local,concem. Guidelines, developed in col-laboration with communities acrossthe state, will indicate those elementsthat must be included in local com-prehensive plans. State goals andpolicies will provide clear guidanceto local government about issues ofstatewide importance.

Though local planning needs vary,state goals and guidelines should en-sure a level of consistency, whilemaintaining flexibility for local imple-mentation. The local water planningprocess presents one possible model.In it, the state had rules for plan con-tent, but local governments set theirown priorities.


All local governments that choose toplan would follow state guidelines forplan content. Counties would reviewlocal plans for consistency with stateguidelines as part of their coordinationresponsibilities outlined in the sectionon inteljurisdictional conflicts. An op-tional strategy would be to have statereview of county and priority planningarea plans for consistency with stategoals and policies.

II Enhance state assistance efforts byproviding easily understood informa-tion on effects ofvarious land uses andmanagement activities. Though stategovermnent is an important resourceforenvironmental, economic anddemographicinfmIDation, that information often is notinafmID usableby local governments. De-ficiencies in both the quality andquantity of environmental data makeit difficult to document the environ-mental impacts of land use changes,which in turn deters support for landuse controls. Local officials and thepublic need a better understanding ofthe connection between land uses andenvironmental effects, as well as strat-egies for preventing problems.

The state should help local governmentby producing up-to-date guidebookson comprehensive planning and landuse regulation; preparing a compre-hensive listing of state technicalassistance and materials and develop-ing new efforts and materials to fillgaps; and developing training for zon-ing administrators and planningcommissioners.

II Encourage collaboration amongjurisdictions to enhance efficiency andexpertise. Lack of resources is one ofthe major barriers to successful plan-ning and plan implementation. Stateand local governments should coop-erate to build local expertise and meet

planning goals efficiently. For ex-ample, several cities or towns couldshare planning staff. This would in-crease opportunities for cooperationand coordination. One model is the lo-cal water planning process, wheregroups of counties combined resourcesto hire regional water plan coordina-tors.

Interjurisdictional Conflicts

Pressures of population growth, re-sources of statewide and regionalsignificance and many other issuesoften do not follow political bound-aries. This can lead to conflicts amonglocal units of government and inad-vertent effects on resources. Activitiesin one part of a watershed affect otherparts. For example, residential devel-opmentoutsideLaCrescenthas contdbutedto the city's stOlmwaterrunoff problems.Plans for zoning and service provisionon one side of the border can directlyaffect the viability of plans on the otherside. Conflict arising from these dif-ferences can be minimized throughcooperation and coordination.

Joint planning can help to coordinategovernment actions on issues that spanpolitical boundaries and avoid costlydevelopment mistakes by bringingparties together before developmentoccurs. Joint plans and regulations canprovide an orderly transition to urbanuses, minimize future service costs andprotect shared resources.

Goal: Planning will be coordinated toavoid conflicts and recognize nonlocalimpacts of development.

• Jurisdictions within priority plan-ning areas should develop commongoals and systems plans to guide indi-vidual comprehensive plans. Priorityplanning areas are those most at risk

to the negative effects of development.In these areas, it is critical for localgovernments to work together to pro-tect resources and meet the needs oftheir citizens adequately and effi-ciently.

Local units may choose to develop oneunified comprehensive plan for theentire area, or they can develop com-mon goals relating to the system thatmade the area a priOlity and ensure thatindividual plans are based on thesegoals.

Existing regional organizations, includ-ing regional development commissionsand joint powers boards, should par-ticipate in the development of commongoals and plans.

The seven-county metropolitan areashould continue to be considered a pri-0rity planning area. Planning would berequired in the area under the guid-ance of the state priorities and goalsand the Metropolitan Council.

II Ensure that communities consultwith neighboring and overlapping ju-risdictions during plan preparation.Cooperative planning outside priOlityplanning areas will reduceinteljmisdiction-al conflicts. Consultation should includeholding joint meetings to discuss goalsand preliminary plans and identify anypossible areas of conflict, and provid-ing the opportunity to comment onfinal plans.

II Ensure compatibility among unitsof government through county reviewof all plans and controls within theirboundaries. All comprehensive plansshould be responsive to the goals ofthe state plan, and they should recog-nize the goals and strategies adoptedby neighboring communities. Countyreview will ensure that local govern-


ment plans meet or exceed minimumplanning standards and that areas ofconflict were adequately addressedduring plan preparation. There areseveral options for county review. Thecounty could advise and comment onlocal plans, or the state guidelinescould require a collaborative effortbetween cities and counties. Anotheroption would be to make county ap-proval a requirement for local planadoption. County decisions could beappealed to the arbitration board, dis-cussed below.

III Provide incentives for collabora-tion among neighboring jurisdictionsfor areawide planning. The stateneeds to provide incentives to localgovernments to encourage joint ef-forts. Incentives might include technicalassistance in planning or priority infunding. Priority planning areaswould have the highest priority for in-centives. Locally initiated planningfor issues or resources of commonconcern should be encouraged throughincentives.

III Provide a process for arbitratingdisputes among jurisdictions. Evenwith coordinated and cooperativeplanning efforts, local governmentsmay disagree on what plans and ordi-nances or actions are most appropriatefor an area of mutual concern. Onejurisdiction might believe that anotheris taking actions that are contrary toadopted plans or state policies andguidelines. Litigation could be avoidedthrough the availability of a disputeresolution process that would havetwo parts: mediation of disputesamong local units of governmentdeveloping plans and ruling on consis-tency of plans and actions with stateand local plans.

Mediation would primarily be forgovernments in priority planning ar-


eas where joint planning and goal set-ting is required. It also would beavailable for other areas that encoun-ter difficulty in plan preparation orissues of compatibility with neighbor-ingjurisdictions. The Office of DisputeResolution could provide mediationservices.

Questions of consistency could bebrought by neighboring communities,citizens or other units of government.Rulings on consistency could behandled by an appeals board or by staffof the entity developing the state stra-tegic plan; decisions could be appealedto that unit's board or commission.Rulings on plans would center onwhether the plan was compatible withand adhered to the state plan's goalsand policies. Government actionswould be evaluated by their adherenceto adopted plans. State and local plansand actions would be subject to thisprocess.

Inconsistent Implementationand Enforcement

State and local plans and regulationsare not always implemented consis-tently. Many communities lack theresources to enforce existing regula-tions. Local officials often lacktechnical expertise to make consistentland use decisions and enough infor-mation on the environmental impactsof potential land use changes tocounter public or private pressure forspecific development. Some existingplans provide no guidance for localdecision-makers, making it more dif-ficult for them to resolve developmentdisputes.

Public support of planning and landuse controls requires a better under-standing of the impact of lifestylechoices. Plans developed with local

input and backed by credible informa-tion provide a firm legal and ethicalbasis for making difficult decisions.

Goal: Plans and ordinances will beconsistently applied across jurisdic-tions and priority areas.

• Help local governments implementand enforce plans and ordinancesthrough enhanced technical assis-tance, education and training, and thefostering of collaboration among ju-risdictions. Plan implementation relieson acceptance of planning goals andcontrol measures by both officials andthe public. Enforcement will improvewith better information and a greaterunderstanding of the consequences ofpoor land use decisions.

Cooperative efforts among jurisdic-tions may help reduce the cost ofplanning and plan implementation byeliminating duplication and enablingsmaller communities to acquire plan-ning and enforcement expertise.Counties have authority to provideplanning and zoning services to citiesor town. Cities could provide similarservices to towns or counties throughjoint powers agreements.

• Encourage consistency by clarify-ing state law to condition localgovernment land use and managementauthorities on comprehensive plan

adoption and requiring that local gov-errunent controls and decisions beconsistent with comprehensive plans.One barrier to consistent enforcement isthe unclear connection between plansand land use decisions. Land use andothercommunity development decisionsshould not be made in the absence of acomprehensive plan. Tying ordinancesto comprehensive plans clarifies this re-lationship, emphasizing that plansprovide the legal basis for land use con-trols and development decisions. Thiswill strengthen the effectiveness of theplan, and help ensure that plans remainup-to-date and relevant.

II Provide a statewide or regionalappeals process to arbitrate complaintsonplan andordinance enforceTnent. Lo-cal enforcement requires oversight.Citizens who object to developmentplans or seemingly arbitrary decisionsneed a forum for complaints. Cur-rently, they can only turn to theofficials who made the decision in thefirst place or to the district court. Theappeals process outlined above wouldbe a forum for such complaints.

This process is not meant to take theplace of boards of adjustment or ap-peals. These boards would continue tohandle questions concerning adminis-trative actions, such as local decisionson variances to setback requirementsor zoning interpretations.


11II Plans accomplish nothingif there is not adequate willand expertise to constantlyimplement them at the locallevel. - Local planning official,Wright County

esigning the FutureThis report calls for significantchanges in the way the state and localgovernments work with citizens to de-sign the future of their communities.These proposed changes require fur-ther discussion about the visionMinnesotans have for the state and thebest means to achieve that vision.Communities, businesses, farmers,environmentalists and public policy-makers will have to come together todevelop the goals that will guide stateand local action.

The Environmental Quality Board willdevelop these recommendations fur-ther as pmt ofthe Minnesota SustainableDevelopment Initiative. The goals andstrategies presented here reflect theInitiative's principles and advancecrucial strategic directions identifiedthrough it.

Sustainable development will not hap-pen without a statewide conversationon what Minnesotans want to sustainand protect, or without plans and strat-egies to achieve those goals. The firststep should be to establish a statewidetask force on sustainable communi-ties. Such a task force would:

III develop statewide policies andgoals on sustainable communities andland use to guide decision-making atthe state, regional and local levels;


III identify a planning framework andprocess that will enhance collaborationat all levels to help achieve the goals;and

III explore state incentives and poli-cies to help local governments achieveMinnesota's sustainable developmentgoals.

Statewide goals and planning guide-lines would be developed through aninclusive process that involves citizens,local governments and a variety ofother interests. Application of the goalsand guidelines could be tested by localpilot projects for sustainable commu-nities. The pilot projects also could helpidentify the information and other re-sources needed for a successful planningprogram. State and local governmentstogether would refine the work of thetask force and ensure the planningframework is both effective and fea-sible.

This report calls for the state to makethe crucial first steps to achieve thevision set out by Milestones and theMinnesota Sustainable DevelopmentInitiative. The strategies it suggests fordesigning and achieving sustainablecommunities provide the basis forfurther discussion-by the task force,the Legislature and, ultimately, allMinnesotans, because everyone mustparticipate in shaping the state's future.

lllllllllll! - 84th Minnesota Legislature · sota desirable. This requires the state to articulate a unified statement of what Minnesota wants for its future. • Lack oflocal plans.

Documents