Bill Numbers: Senate, SF 4677 | House, HF 4646 (2023-24 Session)
Senate Author: Omar Fateh (DFL, 62)
House Author: Samantha Sencer-Mura (DFL, 63A)

Policy Overview

Minnesotan elected officials and the communities they represent have little meaningful ways to influence major transportation infrastructure investments in their communities. 

Many of these transportation projects, both past and present, have displaced and segregated minority and low-income communities, contributing to economic, racial, and environmental inequality. Highway planners ignored the objections of impacted communities and bulldozed their neighborhoods.

Today, MnDOT is required to develop one or more design “alternatives” for major, federally-funded highway projects to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). However, this requirement does not require MnDOT to select or even study solutions preferred by the communities directly affected by the project. A current example is the I-94/252 project, where MnDOT has continued to advance expansion options despite abundant and long-standing opposition from community members and local elected officials. This has resulted in a decade-long process to evaluate the future of the corridor that today faces headwinds that could cause the project’s failure, costing taxpayers time and money without making communities safer and easier to get around. 

To ensure that the voices of impacted communities are heard and that all options for the projects are fairly studied, we are advocating for a “community preferred alternative” bill that would require MnDOT to study a project option if an impacted local government (i.e., the Brooklyn Center City Council) passes a resolution asking the department to do so. MnDOT solicits community input, but a requirement would codify a commitment to prioritize the desires of affected communities.

Furthermore, the new law includes provisions for how and when MnDOT should convene a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to inform major transportation infrastructure projects. Today, these committees have become more symbolic than a space for meaningful collaboration between communities and the agency. Elected officials, especially on high prolife metro area highway projects, advocate for community needs without structures to ensure these concerns are addressed. The Community Preferred Alternative Act would make community consent through elected officials mandatory before major transportation projects can move forward.

This bill would include a mechanism that requires that MnDOT obtain a favorable vote from a project’s policy advisory committee before moving forward with selecting a preferred alternative and beginning construction. For most major projects, MnDOT creates a policy advisory committee or PAC. The PAC comprises elected and appointed officials from impacted communities who provide decision direction. However, the PAC does not currently have formal decision-making authority for the project, and MnDOT can ignore their concerns. 

2023 and 2024 Legislative Progress

The Community-Preferred Alternative Act, designed to enhance democratic accountability and community input in major transportation infrastructure projects, was introduced in both chambers of the Minnesota Legislature during the 2024 session. 

Despite garnering support from communities affected by proposed highway expansions, including those along the Highway 252 corridor, the legislation did not advance through the transportation committees in either chamber and was not incorporated into the omnibus transportation bill. 

Advocacy efforts continue in partnership with impacted communities, with a focus on securing commitments from transportation committee members to advance this legislation in the 2025 session. This initiative remains a priority for ensuring that communities have a meaningful voice in transportation infrastructure decisions that affect their neighborhoods.

Have Other States Pursued Similar Policies?

Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives introduced HB 5154, a similar bill that would require TxDOT to study “an alternative design for the project that has been approved by a vote of the governing body of a municipality or county that represents an affected local community; and the negative impacts to an affected local community from previous transportation projects.” Minnesota legislators should pass such a law this session.

What Does this Bill Mean for Local Control?

Local control discussions have occurred in a variety of contexts, in particular housing and transit development at the Legislature and regional government. Much of this dialogue has been through measures to reduce local control in blocking positive projects such as affordable housing through small area site plans or other local mechanisms or communities rescinding municipal consent for the Purple Line BRT project.

However, Highway projects deserve different treatment than these critical housing and transit investments. Highway investments can be deeply damaging to adjacent communities and should be treated more similarly to permitted facilities– with more local control to tamp down on investments that harm marginalized communities living along them.
This bill ensures that elected officials who represent impacted communities can utilize democratic accountability built into MnDOT’s structure to advocate for projects that better fit local needs and the regional and state needs more broadly.

Could the Community Preferred Alternatives Act be used to block positive projects?

No, the Community Preferred Alternatives Act has been designed to protect local control on major projects without impacting potentially transformative complete streets or other multi-modal investments. The bill’s mechanisms only kick in at a high level of state investment, meaning smaller complete streets projects would not apply for these measures.

Will the Community Preferred Alternative Act Delay Projects or Increase Costs?

MnDOT or business groups might argue that requiring PAC approval and mandatory study of community alternatives would significantly extend project timelines and increase costs, and delay critical infrastructure investments.

However, early and robust community engagement and mandatory alternative studies could actually reduce overall project timelines and costs by identifying and addressing community concerns upfront. The current approach often leads to expensive delays and revisions when community opposition emerges later in the process, as evidenced by the decade-long I-94 project delay and the 252/ I-94 project. Investing in community-supported solutions early prevents costly legal challenges and project modifications down the line that could result in an EIS process failure, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and without improving mobility for anyone.

How would the Community Preferred Alternative Act Impact Union Jobs?

This would strengthen union jobs by creating more stable and predictable project timelines through early community buy-in, reducing costly delays and work stoppages that often result from late-stage community opposition. The Act’s emphasis on comprehensive project design could expand work opportunities across multiple trades, as community-preferred alternatives typically include diverse infrastructure elements beyond basic road construction. Additionally, projects with strong community support face fewer legal challenges and maintain more reliable funding streams, providing union workers with more secure, long-term employment opportunities in transportation infrastructure development and maintenance.

Additionally, other kinds of investments that are better suited to local and regional mobility needs will be prioritized, creating more opportunities for Union Jobs elsewhere.

Does the Community Preferred Alternatives Act Reduce State Authority in Transportation Planning?

Some stakeholders might view this as an inappropriate reduction of state authority over transportation planning. They could argue that MnDOT needs to maintain ultimate decision-making power to ensure a cohesive statewide transportation network that serves broader regional needs beyond local interests.

This legislation enhances rather than diminishes MnDOT’s effectiveness by providing a structured framework for community input. The bill creates a more predictable process for gathering and incorporating local feedback, which strengthens MnDOT’s ability to deliver successful projects. Historical evidence shows that projects implemented without meaningful community input often fail to meet their objectives and require costly modifications to mitigate community harms.

How will the Community Preferred Alternative Act Define Impacted Communities? 

The bill provides a clear framework for defining impacted communities through existing governmental structures. This actually simplifies the current ad-hoc approach to community engagement by creating standardized processes for gathering and incorporating local input.

What if two or more communities or municipalities have different community preferred alternatives?

Transportation is a cross-boundary issue as it impacts the ways people access daily needs, employment, education, and other opportunities. Some might question how this bill handle situations where multiple municipalities have competing preferred alternatives. This could create challenges in areas where project impacts cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries.

How would Regional Transportation Planning efforts be impacted?

Critics might argue that giving individual communities too much power could hamper effective regional transportation planning, particularly in metropolitan areas where transportation needs often transcend municipal boundaries.

However, community-preferred alternatives often better serve regional transportation needs because local officials and residents understand the nuanced ways people move through their communities. The bill doesn’t give communities veto power; rather, it ensures their perspectives are thoroughly studied alongside other alternatives. This comprehensive approach leads to more effective regional transportation solutions.

How would the Community Preferred Alternative Act Impact Federal Highway Planning and Funding Processes?

Beyond what is defined in the NEPA process, MnDOT has significant autonomy in deciding how community engagement and elected officials engagement works. Today, PAC’s are convened at the discretion of MnDOT, leaving procedural questions in a grey area. 

Studying community-preferred alternatives could actually strengthen federal funding applications by demonstrating robust community engagement and environmental justice considerations – both key priorities in federal transportation funding. Projects with strong community support are more likely to secure and maintain funding due to reduced risk of opposition and delays.

What if a community’s preferred alternative is not Technically Feasible? 

MnDOT may express concern that community-preferred alternatives could face engineering or safety constraints that make them impractical, yet the requirement to study them would still consume resources and time.

The requirement to study community alternatives doesn’t override engineering or safety standards. Instead, it encourages creative problem-solving and innovation in project design. Communities often propose practical solutions that meet both technical requirements and local needs, drawing on their intimate knowledge of local transportation patterns and challenges.

Key Summary and Takeaways

The Community-Preferred Alternative Act aims to transform how transportation infrastructure projects are developed in Minnesota by requiring MnDOT to study community-proposed alternatives and obtain Policy Advisory Committee approval before proceeding with major projects. This reform addresses historical inequities in transportation planning, where highway projects have often damaged minority and low-income communities, by creating a structured framework for meaningful community input early in the planning process.

The legislation carefully balances local control with regional transportation needs while maintaining technical and safety standards. Rather than impeding project delivery, early community engagement through this formalized process would likely reduce delays and costs by addressing concerns upfront, preventing expensive modifications and legal challenges later. The bill’s approach would strengthen federal funding applications through improved community engagement, while creating more predictable project timelines that benefit both affected communities and the construction workforce.