Flooding due to extreme rainfall occurs more often the last years and causes high costs of property damage and economic loss due to blocked roads. Climate change is expected to increase the intensity of extreme rainfall with 12% per degree Celsius increase (KNMI, 2015). Especially cities are vulnerable to flooding due to extreme rainfall because of the high urban density and paved surfaces (van Herk et al., 2011). Hence, municipalities face the challenge of developing a climate-proof urban area. However, due to decentralization municipalities face more responsibilities without enough spending capacity. For example rainwater, the municipality has a legal duty to take care of rainwater discharge but has to cooperate with water boards, citizens and other actors. Moreover, cooperation with other actors increases because of high costs for rainwater discharge through the sewage system (RIONED Foundation, 2016). This demands municipalities to look for smarter solutions. However, municipalities are still trying to find a way of coordinating and facilitating cooperation within their network of actors which could lead to shared climate-proof developments. The question remains how municipalities could deal with this challenge and coordinate the network of actors to ensure shared execution of measures. In literature this gap is indicated as the lack of knowledge on the governance role of municipalities to develop a climate-proof urban area (Crowe et al., 2016; Francesch-Huidobro et al. 2016; Marchand & Ludwig, 2014). The research question is as follows: “To what extent is the current governance role of municipalities able to provide, direct and indirect, enough measures in both quality and quantity to ensure a climate-proof public area in dealing with extreme rainfall and how can it be improved?” By means of a literature study the role of municipalities in developing a climate-proof urban area is identified from a scientific perspective. Then, a practical perspective is presented on the position of the municipality of Delft within its network of actors, because Delft is a comparable mid-sized municipality. Furthermore, an additional in-depth case study of Delft is performed. This case study provides empirical evidence on a finished project coordinated by the municipality of Delft to develop a climate-proof public area. Subsequently the three analyses are presented in the synthesis to propose improvements for the municipality of Delft. Next, this synthesis is reviewed by experts. The results from the analyses show that the municipality of Delft is to some extend able to provide a climate-proof urban area. The analysed project was the first of its kind and thus more projects could be initiated to cover the whole municipality. The municipality ensured shared decision making and execution of measures by coordinating and facilitating the project as a meta-governor. Hence, this approach provides good potential to apply more often and ensure a climate-proof urban area. Furthermore, analysis show the municipality of Delft executes some climate-proof measures but this is not yet on a larger scale or in cooperation with other municipal departments or network actors. Lastly, maps with information on bottlenecks, opportunities or other climate related aspects are not up-to-date or lacking which could hamper effective climate-proof developments according to experts. To improve the ability of the municipality of Delft to develop a climate-proof urban area a proposal was presented. The recommendations were confirmed by experts to improve the ability of Delft. The use of area managers is valuable in Eindhoven, The Hague and Rotterdam in gathering local information to improve decision making and communicating the municipal message to the different 5 actors within an area. Also the municipality of Delft could invest more in data gathering and map making of bottlenecks and opportunities. If there is one overview from different municipal disciplines, synergies of plans can emerge, roads, sewage, park maintenance and private initiatives can be executed in one go. This lowers the costs for a plan but needs coordination and availability of data. Furthermore, the time horizon for maintenance of public space or projects could be extended to 1-10 years in order to identify opportunities and synergies earlier. Additionally, the organizational structure or way of working observed in other municipalities is a contributing aspect to be able to develop a climate proof urban area. Disciplines are incentivised to cooperate and develop integral plans because of the organizational structure and way of working. However, without a systems approach these recommendations could only have limited effect. As an example: when the maintenance of weeds in the streets is lacking behind one storm with extreme rainfall will still cause flooding. Which is an important aspect mentioned by experts that often the maintenance is often neglected. Further research should focus on more case studies and the application of meta-governance in the Netherlands. Also different kinds of projects could be valuable to analyse since the analysed project was a municipal project. The provincial or water board projects could have different outcomes. This could increase the body of knowledge and the applicability of meta-governance on different government levels. It is noted that meta-governance is a way of externally coordinate and facilitate developments. However, it is not yet studied what the internal structure has as an effect on the effectiveness of meta-governance. Also, more research should be focused on how the meta-governor can determine clear conditions and boundaries for urban development. These are needed for the new environmental act to clearly indicate how to comply private initiatives with the rules and regulations. Especially since the new act focuses more on private initiatives. Lastly, it is observed that the municipality as the meta-governor used a mixture of meta-governance techniques two, three and four. As most literature focusses on one technique it is recommended to research the effectiveness of the meta-governance techniques when these are combined including who will take this specific role or use a technique. Depending on the situation the roles can be taken up by different municipal actors and not necessarily the city-planner.