Background & Overview

Quick Links on this page:

Background:

Minnesota counties are creatures/agents of the state of Minnesota.  Established under Minnesota Statute, counties face the daunting task of serving in two distinctly different roles although the distinction is often muddied and muddled.  The first of those roles is as a local government providing local services at the behest and demand of local citizens.  Traditionally these roles center around services such as roads, bridges, jails, public safety, preservation of land records, etc.  But even these services are not just local in nature.  Roads may, for instance, serve both a local function but may also have regional and national utility. 

The second role of county government is to serve as an administrative arm of the state and federal governments.  This role is equally challenging as it is often hard to distinguish where the state or federal mandate begins and where local administrative authority and discretion ends.  In addition, a third twist centers on the fact that county government was not made with a cookie cutter and each county has developed unique structures, policies and practices to carry out their mission.

Back to top

PHASE I: Assessment & Analysis of Critical Issues

Completed Fall 2003

Purpose:

The purpose of this phase is to first assess critical issues for county government in Minnesota, then assist in the formulation of recommendations for the future direction of county government.

With these concerns in mind, the Association of Minnesota Counties retained the public affairs firm of Himle-Horner to assess critical issues for county government in Minnesota and assist in the formulation of recommendations for the future direction of county government. 

The project was composed of two parts.  The first involved conducting qualitative and quantitative research.  The second included the analysis of the research findings to determine conclusions, recommendations and present strategic options available for the next step. 

The qualitative and quantitative research included:

  1. Obtain candid, unfettered insight from audiences that are essential to the future success of county government/AMC.

  2. Identify current strengths/weaknesses and future opportunities/challenges. 

  3. Develop recommendations/strategic options to assist AMC in effectively positioning county government for future years. 

The Executive Summary of the report lists five key findings:

  1. Counties are generally well-respected for their work

  2. Core county functions are not well understood by the public

  3. The political environment for tax increases is poor – the public is looking for reform in government

  4. The public supports change but people doubt that counties will be change agents

  5. Counties (local communities) can lead a reform-based agenda

 

Note:  The report did not review the efficacy or effectiveness of AMC legislative strategies but Himle Horner noted that counties were viewed very positively and, by extension, so was the Association. 

The report outlined the following decision tree to be considered as part of the process for determining future direction and actions. 

Phase I Final Reports

Back to top
PHASE II: State Workgroup & Local Projects

Began Spring 2004

 

Background:

While the Himle-Horner report provided numerous qualitative and quantitative, one of the key indicators was the need for counties and county officials to become more proactive.  Whether the proactively is related to legislative issues, public information, community involvement, change and reform, etc., it is vital that county officials are engaged and informed regarding key county concerns.  It also needs to be recognized that any plan for action must recognize the uniqueness of each of Minnesota’s counties and that no single model (as emphasized in the Himle-Horner report) will be appropriate for each county service or for each county in the state. 
Part One: Minnesota County Futures (MCF) Workgroup

Purpose:

This critical next step in the Futures project required establishing a state level workgroup to review, critique and make recommendations regarding the current state/county relationship.

Goals:

  • Review, critique and make recommendations regarding the current state/county relationship.

  • Review and discuss the pros and cons of the Dillon Rule.

  • Make recommendations to the AMC General Assembly regarding legislative changes needed to reaffirm and clarify the state/county relationship.

  • Invite open discussions regarding the relationship, duties and responsibilities of each level of government and among local governments.

  • Investigate topics as determined by the work group. 

Facilitators: 

Toni Smith and Kim Boyce, University of Minnesota Extension Service

Time: 

Preliminary report to the 2004 AMC Annual Conference with a final report at the 2005 Legislative Conference.  Any legislative initiatives would be scheduled for the 2005 and 2006 sessions. 

 Back to top

Part Two:  Local Projects

Purpose:

The second part of Phase II is to establish five or six community projects to explore potential models and reorganizations of service delivery systems around the concept of strengthening communication and collaboration.  Each of the projects would be slightly different and allow discovery of what may or may not be affective.  Each project would be given great autonomy for creating their individual project. 

Goals:

  • Review and critique current local environment and the demographics of their community.

  • Open a dialogue among local leaders regarding opportunities for efficiencies in service delivery systems.  

  • Make recommendations and provide input to the AMC state futures work group regarding legislative changes needed to facilitate change opportunities at the local level.

  • Invite open discussions regarding the relationship, duties and responsibilities of each level of government and among local governments.

  • Investigate issues as determined by the local group. 

Membership:

Each local project would determine the membership and scope of the local work group.  In all likelihood, the membership would include an array of local leaders including county, city, school, town and community leaders. 

Facilitation:

AMC would work with Minnesota Extension and Toni Smith to provide facilitators for the meetings.  The cost of the facilitators would be about $1,000 for each meeting, which would be paid by AMC.

Back to top