By Rep. Paul Anderson
Many questions remain as the final days of session are upon us. A full week, including Saturday and Sunday, are available to pass and send to the governor myriad bills that remain. The tax bill has the best chance of passage because of its importance to all those who file tax returns in Minnesota. Without some level of conformity with new federal regulations, we will be on the hook for increased taxes next year, in addition to a new level of complexity in working with the two tax codes. It was announced late last week that the House and Senate had reached agreement on a compromise bill, so I’m optimistic that Gov. Dayton will sign some level of tax conformity.
A bonding bill was scheduled to be heard on the floor of the House early this week. Its target number, $825 million, is roughly half the size of the governor’s request and will be a challenge to get passed. That’s because it takes a super majority of 81 votes to approve a bonding bill, which means members of both parties must support it. There is also a wide range of opinion on the importance of such legislation. Bonding is just another way to say “borrowing,” which means the state sells bonds and pays them back with interest over a period of time, usually 20 years.
Some legislators don’t think the state should be doing this type of spending, while others feel it’s the best way to help smaller cities and towns with their infrastructure needs. The cost of most of these projects is so high that many local units of government couldn’t afford to pay the entire bill themselves. That’s where the state can step in with a program called Public Facilities Authority (PFA) funding to either issue grants or low-interest loans to assist with the cost. I am of the opinion that bonding is a good way to provide financial assistance in all parts of Minnesota with local road and bridge projects, in addition to various other local infrastructure demands.
A bill I authored has generated a great deal of comment but, so far, not much action. Up to this point, the Legislature has not addressed the situation of compensation to farmers and other land owners for the land they must give up for the purpose of installing buffer strips.
My bill would provide a $50 per acre annual tax credit for those acres that meet Minnesota’s standard for buffers. There is general agreement that something of this nature should be done, but securing the funding to carry it out has proven to be a challenge. Depending on how many acres would qualify for the credit, the cost could range anywhere from five or six million dollars a year up to 15 million.
The two funding sources mentioned so far are taking money from the general fund or using Clean Water Legacy funding. At this point in a non-budget year, it’s difficult to find that much unencumbered money in the general fund. And there is some opposition to utilizing Clean Water funding because it would take money away from other conservation projects. But, according to the state constitution, the legacy money must be used to “protect, enhance, and restore” the state’s water quality, and to me, that fits with the stated purpose of buffers. We’ll see how this plays out in these final days of session.
-30-