Transportation bills now headed to negotiations in the state Capitol include increases in funding, but members of the Area Transportation Partnership for Southwest Minnesota are not optimistic that the region's needs will be met.
Based on what's offered in the House and Senate bills, a final bill is likely to fall short of meeting the state's overall needs as identified by a bipartisan transportation advisory committee put together by the Minnesota Department of Transportation more than four years ago, said Chippewa County Engineer Steve Kubista at a meeting Friday in Willmar.
"Barely trying to keep above water," Kubista said.
His comments came as members of the Area Transportation Partnership -- which provides public input to the Minnesota Department of Transportation on planning and funding of projects -- reviewed a side-by-side comparison of the transportation bills advanced by the Senate and the House and of Gov. Mark Dayton's transportation plan. He said the increases being proposed represent only one-quarter to one-third of the new revenue the bipartisan advisory committee had identified as needed in the next 10 years.
Only the governor's proposal actually calls for providing an increase in new, long-term dedicated funding, according to information presented at the meeting Friday. Dayton is seeking an increase in the gas tax and increased vehicle registration fees.
The House and Senate bills increase funding by tapping sales tax revenues from motor vehicle parts and from rental and lease vehicles -- revenues that are now going to the general fund. The House bill would also add a $75 surcharge on electric vehicles.
The governor's proposal and the Senate and House bills would also increase trunk highway bonding. The House would borrow $1.2 billion in the next two year. The Senate bill earmarks projects for the money it would borrow.
The state constitution dedicates funds from the gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax and license tab fees to the transportation fund. The proposed new sources of funding are not constitutionally dedicated, and could be yanked in future years, it was noted at the meeting.
Jon Huseby, MnDOT District 8 engineer, said the department experienced that sort of dilemma under Gov. Jesse Ventura. General fund bonds were awarded to fund transportation projects. When the state faced a deficit two years later, trunk highway fund money was tapped to pay that debt.
"That's obviously a loss, not a gain," he said. "That is a risk that appears to be potentially back in here."
The transportation bills to be negotiated do not include funding for sought-after improvements to U.S. Highway 212 nor to make possible the state Highway 23 four-lane "gap" project, according to information at the meeting. Highway 23 narrows to two lanes between New London and Paynesville, and there is another two-lane gap north of Paynesville.
Construction on Highway 23 in the Marshall area that was included in legislation last year -- but not approved -- is not mentioned in this year's legislation.
MnDOT is watching a number of non-monetary issues in the current legislation, according to Huseby. One bill places a limit on the number of snowplow drivers. The House transportation bill continues to include a controversial proposal that would increase weight limits for milk haulers and for construction trucks on haul roads.
The gap between available funding and needs for the district's transportation network continues to grow, according to Huseby.
"Inflation keeps eating away at our purchasing power," he said.
Counties are in the same situation in maintaining their own road systems. Kubista said a consultant recently examined Chippewa County's needs and identified a $34 million "hole" in the transportation system over the next two decades.
"Devastating," said Jim Dahlvang, a member of the Chippewa County Board of Commissioners and chair of the Southwest Minnesota Area Transportation Partnership.
