Lawmakers push for outstate transit funding

Would dedicate part of vehicle sales tax to buses

Mark Fischenich

State Rep. Connie Ruth and other southern Minnesota lawmakers are hoping to give outstate Minnesota transit systems a financial boost by dedicating a percentage of the sales tax on vehicles to bus systems outside of the Twin Cities metro area.

Ruth, R-Owatonna, is the chief House sponsor of a bill that would require 5 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax to outstate transit systems. The I-90 Coalition, a group of lawmakers along the southern quarter of Minnesota, is backing the legislation.

“It’s one of our priorities,” said Ruth, whose district includes Waseca and Waseca County — one of seven counties in the state with no transit system.

Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s budget included a dedication of 2 percent of the MVST money to outstate transit. Transportation bills awaiting approval by the Democratic controlled House and Senate essentially split the difference.

The House bill dedicates 3.5 percent to greater Minnesota. The Senate bill is now 4 percent.

The Region Nine Development Commission was suggesting 7 percent go to rural transit, but Rep. Kathy Brynaert said metro-area lawmakers were reluctant to go beyond the 2 percent proposed by the governor.

“The metro transit people feel pretty strapped,” said Brynaert, DFL-Mankato. “It’s a compromise.”

As with the state’s highways, transit systems have been trying to make due with limited increases in funding from St. Paul. The state’s gas tax hasn’t been increased in nearly 20 years, and revenues from that and other transportation funding sources have been below expectations because of changing driving habits.

Attempting to find new revenue for roads and transit, lawmakers last year asked voters to approve a constitutional amendment dedicating the vehicle sales tax — which had been partially diverted to general state spending — to transportation funding. Voters approved the idea Nov. 7, and the money will be increasingly shifted to transportation accounts during the next five years until none is left in the state general fund.

Conflict between metro and rural interests was focused mostly on the distribution of the sales-tax revenue between transit and highways. The constitutional amendment — a hastily written amendment to a 2005 transportation bill that surprised many lawmakers when it passed — dedicated not more than 60 percent of the revenue to highways and not less than 40 percent to transit.

So it set a ceiling on the amount of money that could go to highways, which is the primary focus of rural lawmakers, and set a floor on the funding for transit. Rural lawmakers failed in attempts to change the language of the constitutional amendment, but they hope to at least get a guaranteed share of the transit portion.

“We’re all looking for ways to split limited dollars,” said Rep. Terry Morrow, DFL-St. Peter, who serves on the House Transportation Committee.

Federal and state transit funding for Mankato has been virtually stable in recent years, even as fuel and personnel costs have risen, said Dan Scott, deputy director of general services for the city of Mankato.

Attempts to add routes and bus service in Mankato have had to rely on local property taxes, Scott said. “That has been done without state-funded support,” he said.

And that’s been the situation throughout the state, Ruth said. “There’s absolutely no money to put on additional routes. Basically, it’s a funding issue.”

Mankato Public Works Director George Rosati, who oversees the city’s bus system, said transit funding will become an even more crucial issue as the population ages.

“The big deal for us is going to be this whole mobility transit,” Rosati said. “... Right now we have a far greater need than we can even remotely meet.”