The Legislature may go two straight years without a bonding bill.
That was the warning from Rep. Dean Urdahl (R-Grove City), just before the House voted down an $800 million proposal.
The vote was 70-62 for a delete-all amendment to HF575; however, by law, capital investment bills need three-fifths approval of each body — 81 votes in the House — to pass. Republicans hold a 77-57 seat advantage.
“Why do we bond? To meet our responsibility to address the infrastructure needs of our state,” said Urdahl, the bill sponsor and chair of the House Capital Investment Committee. “This bill primarily addresses those needs.”
MORE See the spreadsheet
Odd-numbered years are traditionally focused on establishing a state budget with a smaller bonding bill; even-numbered years are often centered on a large capital investment plan. However, a chaotic finish to the 2016 session resulted in no bill. Capital investment was also part of the unsuccessful special session discussion over the final seven months of 2016.
“This is a year where we are making up for a bill that we kind of did last year, but not quite,” Urdahl said, noting the only new projects in this year’s bill are for emergency needs.
“We have not yet included all that was in last year’s bill, so the backlog is growing,” she said. “… It needs a bit more work.” For example, she said about one-third of capital investment bills traditionally go for higher education, whereas this bill is at about 10 percent. She also noted the bill is not regionally balanced.
Hausman suggests members from both parties in both bodies and governor’s staff put together a final product before session ends. “We look forward to further work to have a wonderful package that at the end of the day is good for the state,” she said.
Gov. Mark Dayton unveiled a $1.5 billion proposal in January. Sponsored by Sen. David Senjem (R-Rochester), SF210, includes $973 million in general-obligation bonding and $201.9 million in General Fund spending.
“Do you really think that if we send them a bill, it’ll come back smaller?” Urdahl asked members. “Do you really think projects important to you can’t be added?”
Urdahl cannot guarantee another bonding bill would be put forth before members must constitutionally adjourn by midnight Monday.
“It is a little bit disconcerting to me to realize that there are members here who are prepared to vote against projects that are vital to their district,” he said. “I implore you to consider what you’re doing and why. We can’t say that we voted ‘no’ on local projects because $800 million isn’t enough money.”
Among the more high-profile projects in the House bill are:
The state’s latest economic forecast projects a budget deficit of $188 million for the current two-year biennium, and a $586 million deficit for the 2020-21 biennium
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Gov. Mark Dayton’s line-item veto of the Legislature’s 2018-19 operating budget.
The budget process explained — and why it matters