We agree with several rural legislators and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities that the constitutional amendment to dedicate 100 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) to transportation projects is flawed.
The language needs to be changed for the amendment to pass -- or for it to be deserving of passage.
Currently, the amendment limits spending of tax proceeds to 60 percent for highways, roads and bridges while guaranteeing that at least 40 percent be spent on transit programs. While we agree that all these Minnesota projects are important and that it is unseemly to play metro projects against rural projects, it should be quite clear that the amendment language leaves too much to interpretation.
We already know from past experience that when transportation funding isn't written in precise language, all kinds of shenanigans can occur. Many outstate projects -- including several in southwest Minnesota -- have been neglected, delayed or abused before, only adding to the lack of trust now evident throughout this area. Should those of us who've already been burned blindly trust that the vague 40-60 language won't be twisted and turned in ways heretofore unforeseen?
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) didn't help the situation when it recently pushed the transfer of $100 million from rural projects to delayed metro transportation projects. Certainly, many state leaders have come forward to make promises that all that money will be returned to where it came from. But in government, that's never 100 percent guaranteed. These are federal funds from a four-year transportation bill that have been moved, and due to passage of a budget reconciliation bill passed about two weeks ago, MnDOT has been told that Minnesota will now only be able to spend 85 percent of the original set-aside.
ADVERTISEMENT
Where will that leave us?
Constitutional amendments are by their nature difficult to pass. It is questionable whether Minnesotans will want to pass the Minnesota amendment without feeling confident of what it will mean. By passing it, we already know that we will be borrowing money to improve our transportation system -- $2.5 billion over 10 years, in fact -- and to borrow so much money against the future, it's only right that the rest of the story be spelled out more completely.
