Photo By Robb Long
Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL-60) discusses his goals for the legislative session.
|
City legislators talk about top priorities for '08 legislative session
|
By Brady Gervais
In late January, the Southwest Journal invited state legislators representing districts in Downtown and Southwest to discuss the upcoming legislative session, which commences Feb. 12 at noon.
We asked them a spectrum of questions — about their priorities in 2008, the bonding bill, infrastructure and education, among other topics.
Highlights of the roundtable discussion follow.
SWJ: What do you think the top priorities are at the Capitol in 2008?
All: “Transportation.”
Sen. Linda Higgins: “Bonding. Fixing the budget process.”
Rep. Frank Hornstein: “I think health care will be on the agenda, as well.”
Sen. Scott Dibble: “And I think we’re going to try to get back to the tax bill, as well, that was vetoed.”
Rep. Jean Wagenius: “All of these are about sticking to the basics. One of the things that we haven’t had to concentrate on before is creating jobs with our bonding bill. We will concentrate on that this year. That applies also to the transportation bill.”
Hornstein: “And particularly for us in Minneapolis, the transit piece of that bill is extremely important. And I think it’s now been set up as kind of the wedge, if you will, that maybe we can do something to fix roads, which of course we need to do. But [Gov. Tim Pawlenty] and some of his allies are saying that transit is not something that’s taking a priority, and so we are going to make it a priority.”
Dibble: “The nice difference between their ability to use that as a wedge in the past and now is that there is great unanimity across the state, particularly in the metro area, about the importance of transit being a part of an overall transportation system. … We’ve got an overall transportation package that works that passed with overwhelming majorities in the Legislature last year. I think absent of a balanced package like that a bill simply wouldn’t pass, so the governor might as well provide leadership that allows for a comprehensive approach.”
Wagenius: “Everything they’ve said, I totally agree with. There is one additional factor. … The governor has a group now meeting to see how we’re going to reduce climate change gases. Transportation, according to the Pollution Control Agency’s website, is at least a third. So if you’re going to do anything serious about reducing climate change gases, then we will absolutely need to go to more transit.”
Rep. Augustine “Willie” Dominguez: “The other part of this is … I think we still need to continue the discussion on the foreclosures. We strongly are trying to do something, especially in District 58, where a lot of the housing foreclosures were hit.”
SWJ: Gov. Tim Pawlenty does not recommend using any capital dollars to fund [Minneapolis’ eight requested bonding] projects. Do you think the Legislature will approve any of the city’s requests or will it take the governor’s position?
Higgins: “Well, EOC (the Minneapolis Emergency Operations Center) is really important for us to do. The governor has in his budget the money for a new state EOC, which it desperately needs, too, as well as an emergency management training facility at Camp Ripley. But as we saw … during the bridge collapse, the EOC isn’t as big as this room. And there were 120 people in there at one time, so that’s pretty critical. The proposal would combine it with the fire training tower … And it’s a really good proposal, and I think the bonding committee has generally liked that proposal. So I think we’ll see a move on that one.”
Dibble: “There are a couple of important principles to always keep in mind when you are considering these capital investments that we make. One and probably chief is we’re making investments in the infrastructure and bricks-and-mortar of those things that benefit our entire state. Typically, the city of Minneapolis list is a benefit certainly to the operations of the city and services it provides and its residents, but [it] almost invariably has a much larger regional aspect and statewide aspect because this is the core city for the entire metro area. So the emergency operations center, for example, the reach that that has — supporting the public safety agencies all around Minneapolis cannot be overstated.”
SWJ: In the wake of the I-35W bridge collapse, there has been nonstop talk about investing in the state’s infrastructure. Given Pawlenty’s position on a gas-tax increase, where else can the state find money for transportation investments? And do you think common ground can be found on this issue during the upcoming session?
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher: “I do think common ground will be found on this issue. I’m not sure the governor is willing to be part of that solution, and that’s probably because the two main things that seem to be moving toward closer and closer agreement all the time are there needs to be something in the form of [a] gas tax — the user fee that we have accepted is the way that we pay for roads and bridges around the state — with a piece of that that will also be pay-as-you-go for the bonds that are important for around the state. … But the other thing that … I think there is growing agreement on is we need a dedicated source of transit funding for the metropolitan area and, frankly, moving toward a statewide system of transit, which is very much centered around the bus system with the rail lines coming on throughout the Metropolitan Council’s 2020 plan.
“The governor has a harder time with this for a number of reasons. We actually have had in our bill and will have again in our bill [an] offset for low-income folks on their income taxes for the increased amount of the gas tax portion that they’ll pay … And the counter to the governor’s plans, which often are centered almost exclusively on using our state credit card of bonding for the roads and bridges, is that, at the [Minnesota] Department of Transportation, the bill for the bond payments have increased 650 percent in six years. And so we think that’s not sustainable over the long-term. We think it’s very important to have pay-as-you-go in this bill. … This bill will not meet every need of transportation in this state by any means because the Department’s own estimation is that there’s a $2.4 billion need per year for over 10 years. This bill will not get close to that — solving that whole thing … but we have to begin. We have to move beyond this roadblock that’s been there for a number of years.”
Hornstein: “And it’s so important because when you’re looking at the state of the economy long-term, you know, attracting businesses to this region … there’s growing evidence that we are now consuming far more oil than is being produced, so gas prices are only going to go up and people need choices, and they need options, so this is about so many things. Transit is at the center of so many issues. We need to be starting to plan now and get these transit lines up and running and fund our local bus system so that we can be prepared for the reduction in greenhouse gases that we have to make, the reduction in oil consumption that absolutely has to take place.”
Sen. Dan Larson: “Fifty years from now, there will be another group of people sitting in this room either talking about how we did a good job or, boy, did we fail. I think that’s why there’s so much passion around the table about our transportation infrastructure, in particular, because it is a crisis that is of huge proportion that will cost us more if we don’t deal with it now. Every year, it costs us more. But the worst of it is is we’ll compromise our economy, and we won’t have set up the future for the next generation as previous generations had done for us. … I think it’s also really important to note that there’s overwhelming support for dealing with this issue but for one barrier — the governor.”
SWJ: In order for Minnesota to receive $133 million for congestion reduction through the Urban Partnership Agreement program from the federal government, the state needs to provide some of its own funding. The governor included $54.8 million for this project in his capital recommendation. Is this something that you’re supporting, and do you think this will get through the Legislature?
Dibble: “Well, yes, we’re supporting it. That’s the appropriate level. The governor did fully fund that, which is a surprise. It creates the possibility for genuine transit service in the [Interstate]-35W corridor, which would carry the equivalent of two-and-a-half lanes of general purpose traffic through that corridor so we forego the need to expand or forego total gridlock, create options for folks who are coming up and down that corridor. And it creates some innovative policy ideas.”
Hornstein: “There’s support also for telecommuting. And again, it goes back to Rep. Wagenius’ comment: if we’re serious about doing anything on global warming and transportation, it’s transit, it’s telecommuting, it’s reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. … I think any way we can enhance transit is important. But let’s keep in mind, too, that you have to operate the system as well and so it’s great that we can match federal money in an innovative program, but without the operating funds, we run into the same issue that we continually run into. … It’s a step forward, but let’s keep in mind the broader picture of transit.”
Larson: “… Because a lack of resources and a lack of willingness to put resources in transportation, it wouldn’t be the first time the state has left federal transportation dollars on the table. So the answer is really it should be done. I think we all support — strongly support it — but that doesn’t mean it absolutely will happen.”
SWJ: Nearly 100 school districts asked voters to approve levies in November. Minneapolis Public Schools, which is launching an ambitious strategic plan despite a growing budget deficit, will have a referendum question on the ballot next fall.
Many education advocates argue that reliance on levies has led to financial disparities among the state’s school districts. The levies also increase the property tax burden on homeowners. Should the state increase the amount of per-pupil funding allotted to school districts to lessen the need for levies?
Anderson Kelliher: “The answer is yes. It’s going to be a difficult task to do in a year when we face a budget deficit again, but I think we are unanimous in that the state should be doing more on the per-pupil formula and we really do have to.
“You know we did [put] $800 million last year into our school system statewide. That was very good. One of the biggest issues is that we’re still way behind from the bill cuts that happened … a couple of years ago, and the reality is that none of those school districts have been able to catch up [to] where they would have been had those cuts not happened. And so we we’re still working very hard to catch those school districts up. It’s going to take a really sustained effort over a long period of time to get there, and that’s true in a lot of areas because of cuts that previously happened.”
Rep. Neva Walker: “We have just not the cuts but with that … we have an obligation to our school districts from the legislation we put forth with our property tax reform in 2001 that we were going to fund education on a state level and that it was not going to be at the burden of property taxes. And the governor needs to take more leadership with that. He was an advocate on that being a majority leader at that time.”
SWJ: The governor vetoed a tax bill at the end of the last session, slashing hope for property tax relief and additional [local government aid] funding. Although this is a bonding year, will there be any opportunities to work on property taxes or local government aid?
Berglin: “I think there will be an attempt. I don’t know if we’ll get agreement with the governor so we actually get a bill that’s passed and signed.”
|
