Deconstructing HF2800 (or, How to Finance Transportation in Minnesota)

From what I quickly skimmed, Diana, your assessment is right on and these three state legislators are working together effectively to fine tune tax schemes so that Minnesotans get the quality transportation they need.

I regard every one of your articles as a civic act, just as Kathryn Esplin´s are a form of political activism, which is why I try to read you both as faithfully as possible.

Besides, I learn something about what´s happening Stateside!

That's fantastic, John! (You're lucky you don't have to listen to my tirades at the television!)

Yes I saw a lot of this bill being discussed on the TV.

I do wish that the gas tax were a bit higher, and also indexed.

I do tho applaud them for the action on the construction and the additional officers, even tho there was some federal funding tied to that, however, more cops on the street should reduce the accidents also, which I feel in a greater reason.

...and this from two Republicans who stood up for the people in their district:

Transportation funding bill

To the Editor:

The very challenging transportation funding question is one that has remained unresolved for over 15 years at the state Legislature and has come to a head with the collapse of the I-35W bridge.

Thanks to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, a deal was brokered with the legislative leadership late last week. The chamber, a longtime opponent of high taxes, balanced the need for new funding with the ability of Minnesota businesses and citizens to pay for transportation.

A modest gas tax starting at two cents, a small sales tax dedicated to buses and other transit and an increase in car tabs for new purchases make up the bulk of the revenue sources.

Totaling $660 million per year, it is even more important than the $990 million bonding bill which will pass this year for various needs for building public projects around the state.

We are two of the 91 state representatives who supported the chamber in its efforts and voted to make this legislation become law.

Our Anoka County communities desperately need the improvements to Highways 10, 47, 65 and 22 that will now begin to be possible. Prior to the passage of this transportation legislation there was no state money available for any of these projects. They would never have gotten fixed without this infusion of new money.

The local cities of Anoka, Andover, Coon Rapids and Ramsey and the county of Anoka have been taking city and county property tax funds to lend to the state, or to provide for the necessary federal match funds to do a few minor projects. This has directly raised our property tax, which most say is already out of control and driving people from their homes.

One way or the other, citizens have been directly paying a tax already for the government's failure to act.

The Legislative Auditor has called the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT) fiscal picture "grim." Before passage of this transportation legislation, it barely had enough money available for preservation, much less lane expansion for daily-gridlocked Highway 10 and dangerous, jammed old roads like Highway 47 in our area and throughout the state.

The gas tax is clearly a user fee and is directly tied to road use. Every penny of it is constitutionally dedicated to roads and bridges. No part goes to bike paths, buses or trains. For local residents, most of it will be offset by lower increases in city and county property taxes. There is even a credit for families under $32,000 in income to get a rebate.

This legislation starts out at a two cents gas tax increase now, with three cents in the fall, and a phased-in half-percent per year for roads bonding, which the governor has favored all along. It is a very modest increase, reflecting the weakness of the economy, but it will make a difference for Minnesota's roads.

It will also rebuild the state's 13 most dangerous bridges at a cost of $600 million.

Our state Constitution gives three enumerated duties: education, public safety and transportation. We are doing relatively well with public safety, while education is challenged but still producing notably good outcomes.

However, the transportation system is crumbling and MnDOT is broke. We, as legislators, cannot fail to do our constitutional duty.

It would be far easier and much more politically expedient to do nothing and stand against even this modest funding package. It is far harder to do the right thing and support extra transportation funding. We chose to do the right thing.

Remember, one of our bridges collapsed.

It is indeed lonely at the top.


State Rep. Kathy Tingelstad, Andover and Coon Rapids
State Rep. Jim Abeler, Anoka and Ramsey

I'm all for user fees (taxes, or whatever), provided there's some assurance this seemingly minor and obviously necessary (given the condition of our roads, highways, and bridges, etc) increase in state revenue doesn't eventually become just another cherry on top of an ever growing Sundae from which our often wasteful and irresponsible legislators choose to gorge themselves upon. Also... "For local residents, most of it will be offset by lower increases in city and county property taxes" ought to feel like a poke in the eye to those whose homes have gone down in value. A lower increase is still an increase, so this isn't much consolation. Overall, I'm glad they're finally paying more attention to the issue!
P.S. Diana's right about her TV Tirade Chronicles. I've witnessed a few doozeroos!!

A few years ago, in extended session, the Legislature passed a $1 billion bailout of State pensions. The bill was pushed through at literally the last minute, by Republican sponsors of the bill.

They had agreed that no other business would be brought up, but there you are. Watching this on TV was truly educational. Rep. Krinkie stood up, and reminded everyone that this is a property tax increase, and therefor a regressive tax.

Where is that billboard?

Philip - you are so funny - but you make some good points.

Read my lips: NO more taxes!

Read mine, Amy: no more FEES!