Does more for roads mean less for schools?
10/24/2006
Ballot amendment to shift money to transportation worries some parents
BY PAUL TOSTO
Pioneer Press
Bump along some of Minnesota’s roads, catch a pothole or two, and it’s easy to understand the appeal of a November ballot measure that would channel hundreds of millions of dollars more to public transportation.
A “Yes” vote Nov. 7 would amend the state constitution to require every dollar from Minnesota’s motor vehicle taxes be spent on transportation projects, from roads to trains. Scores of groups, including truckers and some environmental organizations, back it. Even Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and DFL challenger Mike Hatch agree on it.
But the money has to come from somewhere, and opponents say schools will take the hit. Right now, nearly half the state’s motor vehicle taxes pour into the general fund, which pays mainly for public schools and colleges. So if a constitutional amendment requires all vehicle taxes go to roads and transit, they argue, education has to lose.
Supporters say it won’t hurt education or health care because the money will shift out of the general fund and into transportation over five years and that it’s “very likely” growth in state tax revenues will fill the breach.
“We are hearing that this constitutional amendment will solve all of our state’s transportation woes at no cost to us,” said Mary Cecconi, executive director of Parents United for Public Schools, an education advocacy group. “We all have to ask the question: what will fill the hole that will be left in the general fund?
Minnesotans pay 6.5 percent tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles. In the 1980s, lawmakers dedicated all that tax money to transit and transportation. But that was tweaked over the years to meet other state needs.
Amendment backers say more than $6 billion in transportation taxes has gone for things other than transportation the past 25 years. Given concerns about roads, bridges and transit, they say it makes sense again to order all motor vehicle tax money to transportation and write it into the constitution so lawmakers can’t tap it for other needs.
By 2012, supporters say, the amendment will add $300 million for transportation, with as much as 60 percent spent for roads and bridges and 40 percent for transit projects, such as light rail. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman calls the amendment critical to building the Central Corridor light-rail project linking St. Paul and Minneapolis.
“We’re not talking about a huge shift under any circumstances,” said Rick Krueger, head of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, one of the amendment’s chief backers.
Despite the public cash at stake and the worries about roads versus schools, the debate hasn’t really caught the public’s eye. That might be because Pawlenty and Hatch both support it. Peter Hutchinson, the Independence Party candidate for governor, supports its “intent” though argues an amendment is the wrong way to do it.
Earlier this month, several lawmakers asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to pull the amendment off the ballot, arguing the way it was worded was too confusing. There’s also scattered worry that dedicating “at least” 40 percent to transit will shoot more money to Twin Cities light rail and less, maybe none, to outstate projects.
Some experts also worry referendums are simply a poor way to do public business.
“If the transportation amendment passes, (motor vehicle sales tax revenues) will go to transportation. There will not even be a discussion about whether there are better uses. … It takes those dollars off the table,” said Nan Madden, director of the Minnesota Budget Project, part of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits.
Her group doesn’t take a position on the transportation question but opposes using constitutional amendments to make budget decisions. She and others say there’s nothing to stop lawmakers from debating and creating a law that puts all the sales tax money into transit and roads.
Practically speaking, Krueger said, that won’t happen. Without a constitutional amendment, the sales tax money “doesn’t get transferred.”
Krueger knows that well. He’s a former Minnesota House lawmaker who says that in the early 1980s he voted to let the Legislature use the motor vehicle taxes for the general fund — the opposite of the position he’s staked out as head of the transportation alliance.
“I suspect I voted in favor of un-dedicating,” he said. “That was in an era when the state was in dire straits — increasing taxes and cutting services. It was an ugly year.”
Recent amendments to the Minnesota Constitution
1988: Permits the legislature to authorize a lottery.
1990: Dedicates 40 percent of the state lottery proceeds to the environment until 2001.
1994: Would have permitted off-track betting on horse racing (rejected).
1996: Authorizes a bonus for Gulf War veterans; provides for recall of elected state officials.
1998: Extends use of lottery money for environment; preserves hunting and fishing heritage; abolishes office of state treasurer.
Source: Minnesota House Research Voters decide Nov. 7 on a state constitutional amendment that would dedicate all motor vehicle sales tax revenue to transportation and transit spending.
A “yes” vote would: Shift hundreds of millions of dollars a year out of the general fund and require that the money be spent on transportation. Approximately $300 million more per year would be spent on transportation, after a five-year phase-in.
Critics say: It will hurt schools and colleges, which depend on general fund dollars, and that it’s bad policy for lawmakers to toss a key funding question to voters. Go to http://www.votenovehicle tax.org to read more from critics.
Supporters say: It will bring needed dollars to roads and transit without raising taxes; it won’t hurt schools because it will be phased in and state revenue growth will fill any gaps. Go to http://www.voteyesmn.org to read more from supporters.
Yes, no, blank. With constitutional amendments, a blank counts as a “no.” So if you intend to vote for it, make sure you fill in the bubble.