Bonding discussions take shape with House DFL proposal

Apr. 16—House DFLers unveiled a $1.03 billion infrastructure proposal this week, setting the tone for ongoing public works negotiations in the Minnesota Legislature.

The proposal includes about $500 million funding from general obligation bonds for statewide infrastructure needs. It also includes another $200 million in appropriations for housing-related infrastructure needs and $300 million for Minneapolis and St. Paul redevelopment after last year's civil unrest in the wake of George Floyd's killing.

GOP lawmakers have staunchly opposed that last proposal, arguing Twin Cities officials should cover more of those costs and the Legislature should spread that kind of funding around the state to help businesses recover from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet DFLers tied technical changes to previous infrastructure bills to their latest public works proposal. Lawmakers passed a $1.9 billion public works bill in October, but the language for a number of the projects included in that bill need to be tweaked so they can move forward without issue.

That puts pressure on Republican lawmakers to support an infrastructure bill, also called a bonding bill because Minnesota borrows money to pay for projects.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, criticized the House DFL bonding proposal in a statement. She called the DFL bill too metro-centric and said DFLers needed to act on technical fixes far sooner.

"We should first separate out the 2020 technical provisions and act on those quickly," Rosen said in the release. "With the economy just starting to come back, we need to get those projects moving as soon as possible."

Other groups also questioned why more Greater Minnesota projects weren't included. The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities called on lawmakers this week to target more rural projects and to put more money into water infrastructure projects.

Aside from a list of projects related to equity, there are few specific projects included in the DFL bill. The Minnesota Sex Offender Program would receive $8.85 million under the House proposal for a renovation project to add more beds to its community transition program, about half of what the state Department of Human Services requested. A proposed veterans cemetery in Redwood Falls would receive about $4.5 million.

Much of the bill goes toward asset preservation or state infrastructure accounts, from $5 million for the Greater Minnesota Child Care Facilities fund to $15 million for the state Public Finance Authority for water infrastructure across Minnesota.

Community officials across the state want lawmakers to put at least $50 million into the state's PFA this year.

"$15 million for the Public Facilities Authority is simply inadequate to address the critical water needs of our entire state," Little Falls Mayor Greg Zylka, the coalition's president, said in a statement. "State agencies project more than $11 billion is needed statewide over the next 15 to 20 years to address water pollution and replace aging infrastructure, yet this bill fails to make clean water a priority."

While state leaders have largely agreed to focus on more statewide infrastructure funding this year, local lawmakers and community officials had hoped there would be funding for smaller projects.

"This is just the bill that's coming out of committee. It still needs to go to the House floor," said Rep. Luke Frederick, DFL-Mankato.

Frederick said he's still hopeful ongoing negotiations will include more local projects in the future.

Local officials aren't as hopeful, however. Mankato City Manager Susan Arntz said city officials were "disappointed but not surprised" at the lack of local projects included in the DFL proposal.

"We'll work in the parameters for this summer to get our projects before legislators next year," Arntz said.

It will likely be several weeks before lawmakers iron out a bonding bill. While lawmakers in the House have repeatedly met over the past few months, the Senate Capital Investment Committee has only met once this year. Many lawmakers consider a bonding bill to be among the last budget items to hash out during a regular legislative session.

A bonding bill must start in the House and requires at least 60% of lawmakers in both the House and Senate to support it.