60-40 language unpopular with some

Mark Fischenich

NORTH MANKATO — A prominent organization of outstate Minnesota cities is urging voters to reject a constitutional amendment to dedicate more state funding for transportation.

The decision by the board of directors of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities could hurt the odds of the amendment passing Nov. 7. The amendment attempts to dedicate to transportation projects 100 percent of revenue from the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) — half of which is now going into the state general fund.

Putting all of the money into transportation would generate an extra $300 million a year for roads and transit and could make a dent in the growing backlog of critically needed road repair and expansion projects, according to supporters of the amendment.

But North Mankato Mayor Gary Zellmer, a member of the coalition’s board of directors, said the amendment has a fatal flaw that could ultimately allow transit projects to take most of the money and leave rural Minnesota roads crumbling.

“We’ve got to fight for every penny we can get,” Zellmer said.

The coalition’s opposition comes despite years of working to boost road funding and despite support for the idea of dedicating the tax on vehicle sales to transportation projects. The concern is the wording of the amendment, hastily approved by the Legislature in 2005, provides that “not less than 40 percent” of the new money go toward transit projects and “not more than 60 percent” be used for roads.

Essentially, there’s a ceiling — but no floor — on the share of the $300 million that would go for road projects. In contrast, there’s a floor — but no ceiling — on the percentage available for transit projects.

“This wording was put in there to allow transit to go after that other 60 percent,” Zellmer said. “... Transit wants the money.”

Worries about the wording among rural Minnesota cities and other highway advocates have prompted another organization of municipalities — the League of Minnesota Cities — to request that Gov. Tim Pawlenty call a special session of the Legislature to fix the problem. (See accompanying story.)

Others, however, are pushing ahead with a campaign to get voters to support the amendment despite the concerns of greater Minnesota cities.

“It’s really disappointing that they’d let that get in the way of actually making progress in the area of transportation that’s desperately needed,” said Margaret Donahoe, legislative director of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. “... Opposing the amendment doesn’t get a single highway built in greater Minnesota or anywhere else. It’s just stopping progress.”

The Transportation Alliance — made up of highway construction firms, trucking companies, local governments and transit groups — is backing a statewide radio campaign aimed at getting people to vote yes on the amendment.

If the amendment passes, the Legislature and governor would have the opportunity to allocate the additional transportation funding as they see fit — as long a minimum of 40 percent was provided for buses, light rail systems and other transit projects. Both Pawlenty and legislative leaders insist they want 60 percent of the money to be dedicated to roads.

“There’s absolutely zero evidence that the Legislature will split this money in any other way,” Donahoe said.

But there would be nothing in the constitution stopping future governors or lawmakers from dedicating a majority of the money for transit. The coalition attempted to get the Legislature to fix the wording earlier this year and succeeded in getting both the House and Senate to pass a solid 60-40 split in favor of roads.

The legislation died in a conference committee, one that was stacked on the Senate side with pro-transit lawmakers, Zellmer said.

Now, it makes more sense to defeat the amendment Nov. 7 and try again another year, he said.

“It’s an embarrassment that we’d even consider putting something in the constitution that’s that fuzzy,” he said.

The coalition won’t be doing any advertising aimed at persuading people to vote against the amendment. It’s possible other groups may step forward with “vote no” campaigns, including those who don’t have a direct stake in the road vs. transit debate.

Some supporters of public schools, subsidized health care, nursing homes and other programs that tap into the general fund prefer the $300 million from the vehicle sales tax remain in that fund.

The amendment also faces one other hurdle. It would be added to the constitution only if 60 percent of the voters Nov. 7 check the “yes” box. And any voters who don’t mark their ballot either way on the amendment question — a number that will increase if there’s conflicting advice on how to vote — are tallied as “no” votes.