Metropolitan Council City Council — Transcript
Thursday, July 23, 2026
Story
Council approves transportation projects despite eligibility concerns
Regional Solicitation Qualifying Review
ADA Transition Plan Requirements
Clarity of Application Guidelines and Software Functionality
Inter-agency Coordination and Project Commitments
Votes (8)
Active Transportation Solicitation Qualifying Review (Transmitt 2026-35)
Dissent: Melissa Lightner/Washington County [Timestamp] voted Nay on the Orono disqualification, citing lack of clarity in application documents.
Moved by Katie White/Minneapolis [Timestamp] · Seconded by Elaine/Met Council staff [Timestamp]
The committee reviewed three projects. Orono's trail resurfacing project was recommended for disqualification due to being maintenance, below minimum funding, and lacking a letter of support. Debate centered on the clarity of 'permanent improvement' in guidelines. Centerville's trails reconstruction project was conditionally qualified pending submission of a complete ADA self-evaluation, highlighting broader issues with ADA plan awareness in smaller communities. Edina's project was qualified as necessary ADA documentation was provided prior to the meeting.
Regional Solicitation Qualifying Review (Transmitt 2026-36)
Dissent: None. (Regarding Ham Lake Jackson Street disqualification)
Moved by Michael Thompson/Plymouth [Timestamp] · Seconded by Paul [Timestamp]
This review covered multiple eligibility issues for 92 applications. Ham Lake's Jackson Street and East Netta Drive projects and St. Louis Park's Oxford/Louisiana project were disqualified due to not meeting federal or TAB-specific roadway functional classification requirements. A significant discussion occurred over St. Louis Park's request to modify project scope. Separately, Carver County, Anoka County, and Richfield projects, initially recommended for disqualification due to being below minimum funding thresholds, were approved by committee vote to proceed, overriding staff's recommendation. The Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota project was conditionally qualified, pending an increase in local match to meet maximum funding limits. Hennepin County's Cass 9 reconstruction project faced issues with local match and year-round maintenance commitments from Robbinsdale, and was conditionally qualified by allowing the county to modify the funding source documentation. Dakota County's Vermillion Highlands Greenway was conditionally qualified pending letters of support from Met Council Environmental Services, highlighting internal coordination challenges.
Regional Solicitation: Roadway Application Eligibility (Ham Lake & St. Louis Park)
Dissent: Henipin County Buel [Timestamp], Ramsey County Leeman [Timestamp], Melissa Lightner/Washington County [Timestamp], and Fley Koslucher [Timestamp] voted Nay on the St. Louis Park disqualification, likely reflecting concerns about the clarity of guidelines or the project's regional benefits.
Moved by Anthony/Anoka County [Timestamp] · Seconded by Russ [Timestamp]
Ham Lake's East Netta Drive and St. Louis Park's Oxford/Louisiana projects were deemed ineligible for the roadway modernization category because they were not on minor arterial roadways or above, as required. St. Louis Park's representatives presented arguments for project merits and requested flexibility to modify their application or consider other categories due to perceived ambiguities in the application's guidance documents. Staff maintained consistency with rules against late changes to project scope.
Regional Solicitation: Minimum Funding Request Thresholds
Dissent: Egan Matthysse [Timestamp], Eden Prairie Ellis [Timestamp], Lakeville Omie [Timestamp], and Fley Koslucher [Timestamp] voted Nay, possibly in adherence to the staff's recommendation for disqualification based on the established minimums.
Moved by Melissa Lightner/Washington County [Timestamp] · Seconded by Michael Thompson/Plymouth [Timestamp]
Three projects (Carver County Lake Matonka Trail, Anoka County Lake Drive Roundabout, and Richfield 76th Street Intersections) were below the established minimum funding thresholds for their respective categories ($1M or $2M). While staff recommended disqualification, applicants were willing to proceed. Committee members debated the historical precedence of allowing projects just under the minimum and the administrative burden of federalizing small projects versus the regional benefits. The committee ultimately voted to allow these projects to continue, disregarding the minimum threshold.
Regional Solicitation: Maximum Funding Request Thresholds (Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota)
Dissent: None. (Conditionally qualified pending documentation)
Moved by Russ [Timestamp] · Seconded by Chavic [Timestamp]
The Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota project exceeded the maximum federal funding request of $750,000 for the Travel Demand Management category. The applicant acknowledged the error, attributing it to confusion with the new 'Flux' system and lack of consultant support, and expressed willingness to increase their local match to reduce the federal funding request to the allowed maximum. Staff recommended conditional qualification pending this documentation.
Regional Solicitation: Local Match Commitment (Hennepin County Cass 9 Reconstruction)
Dissent: None.
Moved by Melissa Lightner/Washington County [Timestamp] · Seconded by Ramsey County Leeman [Timestamp]
Hennepin County's Cass 9 reconstruction project (04866) lacked a specific letter of financial commitment from Robbinsdale, a city partner, despite having the county's cost participation policy. The committee discussed the practical enforceability of such letters over time and the varying specificity of match reporting across applications. The motion to conditionally qualify the project, allowing Hennepin County to modify its funding source documentation to state 'county funds only' (implying the county would cover any shortfall), was approved.
Regional Solicitation: Year-Round Maintenance Commitment (Hennepin County Cass 9 Reconstruction)
Dissent: None recorded from those present.
Moved by Michael Thompson/Plymouth [Timestamp] · Seconded by Melissa Lightner/Washington County [Timestamp]
This issue was tied to the same Hennepin County Cass 9 reconstruction project as the local match, specifically concerning a year-round maintenance commitment for the Robbinsdale segment. Due to the lack of a letter of support from Robbinsdale, the maintenance commitment was also in question. The applicant stated uncertainty regarding the county's action if Robbinsdale did not commit. The committee approved conditional qualification, setting an August 11th deadline for the necessary documentation or modification.
Regional Solicitation: Letters of Support (Dakota County Vermillion Highlands Greenway)
Dissent: None recorded from those present.
Moved by Russ [Timestamp] · Seconded by Steve Peterson [Timestamp]
Dakota County's Vermillion Highlands Greenway project (04910) lacked a letter of support from Met Council's Environmental Services division, which owns the land. Despite ongoing coordination and discussions between Dakota County and various Met Council departments (Parks, Real Estate, Environmental Services), concerns from the plant engineering team within Environmental Services remained unresolved. The project was conditionally qualified pending submission of the required letters of support by August 11th.
Notable Quotes (12)
I just tried to look through or in prep for this all the application and qualifying stuff. I did not see that explicitly stated anywhere. Um not in the qualifying criteria it says a permanent improvement which to me that does not mean maintenance. A permanent improvement could be a mill and overlay. To me that is permanent.
An ADA transition plan is required of all entities with 50 or more employees. If you have fewer than that, you have to um complete a self-evaluation. So, it's not a full plan, but you do have to have an evaluation of what you have and then looking at how you would move forward in improving that.
I think we we we're learning some stuff, right, for some of these smaller communities, you know, these this information is not as likely to be completed yet. And so I think we're, you know, following this uh solicitation around, we're going to be looking to help with some trainings and things like that for some of these smaller communities to uh compete in the future.
This was the first time that we used this new flux software and I think overall it worked worked quite well. One thing for next cycle that I think we could improve upon as we further implement it is to uh like in this case Ham Lake submitted and they there was a drop down list or whatever and they didn't and they weren't eligible you wouldn't be able to submit your application or or move on from that step.
We did not see the roadway functional class requirement specifically identified within that um sub roadway modernization category document and we did heavily rely upon that document in developing the application.
I would respectfully ask that instead of disqualifying us based on the functional classification of the major and minor, could we, um, you know, is there another category that we could compete under or could we modify our application to focus on that arterial intersection
The reason we put a minimum is because there there is a an amount out there where it's not worth it to federalize it, send it through state aid and go through the the process. Um not sure what that magic number is, but we didn't want a bunch of say 50 or $100,000 projects being federalized and having to go through the state aid process. That was too ownorous.
These getting these financial commitments from cities is like means almost nothing quite frankly to us from a project development standpoint. We never go back and say, 'Hey, you signed this four years ago.' Because their council could be totally different. Their financial state could be totally different.
If they say someone else is providing part of the match, that is one of the requirements is that you can't just say someone else is doing it and then they don't agree to it. Um, we've had some instances where cities said they'll provide the match and we contact them and they said no, we didn't promise that.
I think we're learning this new um flux system a little bit as well. And we're a we're a small nonprofit that does big things throughout the uh metro area, but we don't necessarily have um consultants with the uh background working on this. So, um a special thank you to the teammates that helped us work through this process.
We did get an email this morning from our environmental services, the plant engineering team. It said that they continue to have concerns with the project and have a meeting with the real estate team in late July to discuss it. But also said given these concerns, environmental services cannot issue a letter of support until the project team addresses them and encourage the project team to continue to work with the plant engineering team.
We have had uh multiple meetings this year um related to that. Uh part of that I think concern was related to um uh potential contamination on site. our staff's actually looking to do um some borings to help identify that as well as identify what the right solution for construction is.
Ordinances & Resolutions (8)
Document outlining qualifying review items for the 2026 Active Transportation Solicitation.
Document outlining qualifying review items for the 2026 Regional Solicitation for federal transportation funds.
Released for public comment, regarding updating the bronze line bus rapid transit project and adding the JNK line bus rapid transit projects.
Document available to applicants, mentioned in discussions regarding the clarity of eligible expenses like maintenance.
Required document for all entities with 50+ employees (plan) or fewer (self-evaluation) for project eligibility.
A board-adopted document used by Hennepin County to assign cost and maintenance responsibilities to city partners for projects.
A sub-document for the roadway modernization category, noted for not explicitly stating functional classification requirements, contributing to applicant confusion.
The new application submission system used for solicitations, discussed for its potential to improve eligibility flagging.