The Minnesota House of Representatives adopted its Transportation Bill yesterday. The bill presents a bit of a dilemma for the State Legislature because it contains a provision that changes the proposed ballot question in this fall's referendum on whether or not we should change the way we spend the sales tax revenue generated by the sale of motor vehicles in this state. There is a good story about the issue in today's St. Paul Pioneer Press.
This issue is important to us in Eden Prairie because it impacts the referendum. The more complicated the ballot langauge, the less likely it will be to pass. The issue is already difficult to fully understand. The heart of the issue is this: How should the revenue generated by the sales tax that is applied to the sale of motor vehicles be apportioned between building roads and improving transit operations?
The current ballot language that you'll get to vote on this fall says the revenue should be divided up between transit and roads like this: "…not less than 40% to transit and not more than 60% to roads…" If nothing else happens on this issue, that will be the question that Minnesota voters will consider and vote "YES" or "NO" on in November.
Some legislators have been trying all session to change the ballot language to reflect a "hard split" of the money with 40% going to transit and 60% going to roads. The "hard split" language is in the House Transportation Bill. It's not in the Senate Transportation Bill, so it the bills will go to a House-Senate Conference Committee to, hopefully, iron out the differences between the two bills.
There are positives and negatives of changing the ballot language at this time. One potential downfall of the current language is that it will continue the annual roads vs. transit funding debtate which the legislature engages in year after year. This debate grows more mean spirited every year as it morphs more and more into a debate between the metro area and greater Minnesota legislators. So maybe the "hard split" language would quell that debate for a few years. Maybe.
There is one thing for sure on this issue: It would be a good thing for citizens to approve this constitutional change. More money into transportation is good for our state, and good for Eden Prairie. One of the top projects that would be funded if the referendum passes is the massive improvement project at the 494-169 Interchange.
That would be big.
