2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Remember that the existing half-cent transportation sales tax doesn't go away, and in Hennepin and Ramsey counties at least, there's no indication that anyone (except Jeff Johnson) is looking to shift it from transit to highways.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: RE: Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Right, but the total would still be much less than a lot of places.Remember that the existing half-cent transportation sales tax doesn't go away, and in Hennepin and Ramsey counties at least, there's no indication that anyone (except Jeff Johnson) is looking to shift it from transit to highways.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6393
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Here's a two-page summary of the transit-specific components of the budget proposal: https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... udget.aspx
Read carefully though as some of the numbers given are for "the next ten years" (the bullet points), while other numbers given are for the FY2020-21 two-year budget.
Walz proposes $36.5MM in FY20-21 dedicated to Metro Mobility, so we can probably assume that means about $18MM in annual "savings" for Metro Transit. But remember that Metro Transit recently faced a two-year budget deficit of $56-89MM, prior to the fare increase and some admin staff freezes, etc. It's probably safe to assume that the annual ~$18MM savings to Metro Transit will really just plug an existing hole, to keep service at current levels (or back to where we were before the shortfall-induced service cuts)
Metro Mobility getting its own state budget line is subtle but super important. TBH this is probably the "must-have" piece of Walz' proposal that needs to be preserved in any compromise with the Senate GOP. This simply has to happen, or Metro Mobility growth (5-8% annual growth) will eventually necessitate further service cuts to regular route transit.
The MVST increase from 6.5% to 6.875% ($205MM over 10 years) would basically just stabilize revenues to the initially projected levels, since MVST has not grown as rapidly as projected in 2006. I wouldn't even really look at this as an increase...just going back and "fixing" MVST.
Taken together, the MVST and Metro Mobility funding changes should really be looked at as "stability", not "growth". Doing these two things will help Metro Transit avoid future service cuts, fare increases, and allow very modest service growth (such as the duplication of aBRT/local service, new/improved suburban local routes to connect with Southwest LRT, etc.)
The additional 1/8-cent sales tax would bring in $770MM over 10 years, or probably $60-65MM annually in the immediate future (assuming steady growth in collections over the 10-year period). I want more information on this piece. The budget brief just states "to maintain and expand the regional bus and transitway system". Elsewhere, the document specifically notes that Walz' budget "will add 10 new BRT lines in the next decade". It also mentions $20MM in annual G.O. bonds, but does not specifically say what for.
Read carefully though as some of the numbers given are for "the next ten years" (the bullet points), while other numbers given are for the FY2020-21 two-year budget.
Walz proposes $36.5MM in FY20-21 dedicated to Metro Mobility, so we can probably assume that means about $18MM in annual "savings" for Metro Transit. But remember that Metro Transit recently faced a two-year budget deficit of $56-89MM, prior to the fare increase and some admin staff freezes, etc. It's probably safe to assume that the annual ~$18MM savings to Metro Transit will really just plug an existing hole, to keep service at current levels (or back to where we were before the shortfall-induced service cuts)
Metro Mobility getting its own state budget line is subtle but super important. TBH this is probably the "must-have" piece of Walz' proposal that needs to be preserved in any compromise with the Senate GOP. This simply has to happen, or Metro Mobility growth (5-8% annual growth) will eventually necessitate further service cuts to regular route transit.
The MVST increase from 6.5% to 6.875% ($205MM over 10 years) would basically just stabilize revenues to the initially projected levels, since MVST has not grown as rapidly as projected in 2006. I wouldn't even really look at this as an increase...just going back and "fixing" MVST.
Taken together, the MVST and Metro Mobility funding changes should really be looked at as "stability", not "growth". Doing these two things will help Metro Transit avoid future service cuts, fare increases, and allow very modest service growth (such as the duplication of aBRT/local service, new/improved suburban local routes to connect with Southwest LRT, etc.)
The additional 1/8-cent sales tax would bring in $770MM over 10 years, or probably $60-65MM annually in the immediate future (assuming steady growth in collections over the 10-year period). I want more information on this piece. The budget brief just states "to maintain and expand the regional bus and transitway system". Elsewhere, the document specifically notes that Walz' budget "will add 10 new BRT lines in the next decade". It also mentions $20MM in annual G.O. bonds, but does not specifically say what for.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
- Location: Minneapolis
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Important also to note that the proposed 1/8th sales tax increase would fund ten new aBRT routes. Last year, I estimated that completing a network of fifteen routes would cost about $800 million in total. Of course, the A-Line has already been built, the C-Line is about to open, and the D, B, and E lines are all partially funded. The Walz-Flanagan budget is excitingly near to what I had hoped for, and with some potential added room for fleet electrification. I also hope that if this funding is passed, that it will spur Metro Transit to revise their 2012 list of aBRT corridors with the perspective of building a network of service instead of simply enhancing random corridors.
I'm optimisitic that both the sales tax increase and the Metro Mobility carve-out will survive the legislative session. Plenty of Republican legislators have expressed support for aBRT (albeit some not-insignificant portion have done so purely as an anti-light rail stalking horse), and the costs would fall entirely on people who swept the DFL into power. I don't know what the politics of the carve out for Metro Mobility would be, but it's an idea that makes a lot of sense on the merits, and I'm hopeful that it will be a top priority.
This is definitely an easier lift than the gas tax!
I'm optimisitic that both the sales tax increase and the Metro Mobility carve-out will survive the legislative session. Plenty of Republican legislators have expressed support for aBRT (albeit some not-insignificant portion have done so purely as an anti-light rail stalking horse), and the costs would fall entirely on people who swept the DFL into power. I don't know what the politics of the carve out for Metro Mobility would be, but it's an idea that makes a lot of sense on the merits, and I'm hopeful that it will be a top priority.
This is definitely an easier lift than the gas tax!
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: RE: Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
One does not happen without the other. Suburban and rural legislators won't vote for transit money without road money in return.This is definitely an easier lift than the gas tax!
My fear is that the inevitable gas tax reduction will result in a decrease in or elimination of the transit piece, leading to an outcome where road spending is expanded but transit spending isn't.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7761
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
I'm not sure I want to support a gas tax increase if it goes towards an increase in road money. It should only be used to offset the cross-subsidy of roads from the general fund and other roadbuilding slush funds.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6393
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Agreed. If the gas tax is increased by 10 cents or 20 cents or whatever, that ought to be the end of Corridors of Commerce and all other means of siphoning money out of the general fund and hogging up bonding capacity.
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
I went to a Transportation and Transit forum with MAK and Slavik on the speaker panel this morning, and MAK said that was the intent - that the gas tax would give transportation a dedicated source of funding separate from the general fund, because when you have a recession, the whole general fund goes to keeping healthcare and education going and suddenly you haven't done any roadwork for five years.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Regarding the roadwork and development programs that are supposed to last over 5-6 years, I'm always quite skeptical... Our taxes are going there for the next couple years, and if at the next election, someone else wins and has different priorities, it'll all be in vain as the program will be abandoned, liquidated or at best botched, which will cost extra money without bringing positive results.
If you're a politician and are presenting long term projects as arguments to make people vote for you, you'd better be 200% sure to be reelected, otherwise you, your electors and the city will all lose together.
If you're a politician and are presenting long term projects as arguments to make people vote for you, you'd better be 200% sure to be reelected, otherwise you, your electors and the city will all lose together.
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
No gas tax hike.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Good.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6393
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
The 2020 Session started today! Will they get anything done? That insulin bill, maybe.
https://www.minnpost.com/state-governme ... this-year/
It doesn't sound like the House DFL is going to do much on legalization, aside from holding some hearings. There's no chance of a bill even getting a committee hearing in the GOP Senate, and it kinda sounds like House DFL Majority Leader Ryan Winkler (a strong proponent of legalization) isn't planning to push for a floor vote in the House. I'm not sure I understand the logic of that...why not pass a bill in the House and be able to say to voters "look, you really need to vote out these GOP senators!"
https://www.minnpost.com/state-governme ... this-year/
It doesn't sound like the House DFL is going to do much on legalization, aside from holding some hearings. There's no chance of a bill even getting a committee hearing in the GOP Senate, and it kinda sounds like House DFL Majority Leader Ryan Winkler (a strong proponent of legalization) isn't planning to push for a floor vote in the House. I'm not sure I understand the logic of that...why not pass a bill in the House and be able to say to voters "look, you really need to vote out these GOP senators!"
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
- Location: Minneapolis
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
I just hope the D Line is funded. Please, please, fund the D Line.
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Yeah, not even bothering to try for a legalization bill seems like a good way to lose a possibly crucial amount of votes to the weed parties.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Looks like it's on its way!Yeah, not even bothering to try for a legalization bill seems like a good way to lose a possibly crucial amount of votes to the weed parties.
https://mobile.twitter.com/_RyanWinkler ... o-weeks%2F
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
Lots of discussion over in transportation regarding the bonding bill, but there are many other interesting projects in there. Full list of projects here (PDF, a couple of days old so possibly some minor tweaks).
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
https://www.startribune.com/state-econo ... 573247871/
Looks like the state has more money then expected from a 2.4 billion dollar hole to a 600 million dollar surplus. This is great news and hopefully they will inspire state leaders to help hurting business
Looks like the state has more money then expected from a 2.4 billion dollar hole to a 600 million dollar surplus. This is great news and hopefully they will inspire state leaders to help hurting business
Re: 2019-2020 MN Legislative Session / Budget / Bonding
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-l ... 573388171/
A deal has been made on this. I would have liked something more in the 300M range. Still very good news for MN.
A deal has been made on this. I would have liked something more in the 300M range. Still very good news for MN.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests