2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget - Battle for the Senate Majority?

Elections - City Councils and Commissions - Policies
twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget - Battle for the Senate Majority?

Postby twincitizen » January 4th, 2017, 1:00 pm

We're underway!

Senate: 34R-33D (way to go DFL! brilliant!)
Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, Minority Leader Tom Bakk
House: 76R-57D
Speaker Kurt Daudt (likely 2018 GOP nominee for Gov), Minority Leader Melissa Hortman (why isn't she running for Gov? seems great!)

Given the total system failure of the 2016 session and Daudt's refusal to hold a special session in late 2016 (so no bonding bill, no new transpo funding, and a tax bill vetoed due to a clerical error), those issues will again be front and center this session, along with healthcare premium relief likely coming early in session.

Dayton hopes to get a bonding bill through quickly, so construction may begin ASAP.
Here is his $1.5B proposal, which will likely get trimmed to just under $1B I'd guess, or it won't get through the House:
Factsheet - http://mn.gov/gov-stat/pdf/2017_01_04_F ... s_Bill.pdf
Spreadsheet - http://mn.gov/gov-stat/pdf/2017_01_04_M ... ptions.pdf

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 764
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby VAStationDude » January 4th, 2017, 1:23 pm

Bold prediction: nothing big will get done until May.

matt91486
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 132
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 5:28 pm

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby matt91486 » January 5th, 2017, 4:39 pm

Except for apparently, liquor sales, which will careen through

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby David Greene » January 5th, 2017, 7:28 pm

And bathroom bills.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby twincitizen » January 6th, 2017, 8:55 am

You could almost be certain the GOP said the same thing after taking both chambers in 2011: "We're going to go slow and not overreach on social issues." But we all know how that worked out for them. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they pass bathroom bills, "religious liberty" or whatever, abortion restrictions, etc. Of course, every last one will be vetoed, but they'll still do it anyways, wasting half the session on a bunch of garbage that has no chance of becoming law.

cnelson
City Center
Posts: 35
Joined: July 10th, 2013, 12:43 pm

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby cnelson » January 6th, 2017, 9:03 am

They want the vetoes. They'll be the centerpiece of their ad campaign for the 2018 governor's race.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby MNdible » January 6th, 2017, 10:23 am

Divisive social issues haven't proven to be winners for the GOP in recent statewide elections, so they'll be proceeding at their own risk.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby twincitizen » February 8th, 2017, 7:48 am

Frank Hornstein found a Republican co-sponsor (Mark Uglem of Champlin) for his bill to prohibit/limit handheld device use while driving: http://www.startribune.com/mn-lawmakers ... 413092653/

I asked Frank about this back in 2014 or 2015 and he made a weird comment about "libertarian-minded opposition" or something to that effect. DFL totally could have gotten this done when they had total control in 2013-14.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby David Greene » February 8th, 2017, 3:32 pm

I asked Frank about this back in 2014 or 2015 and he made a weird comment about "libertarian-minded opposition" or something to that effect. DFL totally could have gotten this done when they had total control in 2013-14.
DFL totally could have gotten a lot of things done back then. But they "didn't want to overreach" and lost the next election anyway. I hope they learned their lesson.

And wow, quoting is totally broken...

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby twincitizen » May 15th, 2017, 10:58 pm


Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4470
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby Silophant » May 15th, 2017, 11:43 pm

Djayton Unchained, indeed. Excellent.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

Vagueperson
Union Depot
Posts: 311
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:13 am
Location: Payne-Phalen, St. Paul

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby Vagueperson » May 16th, 2017, 11:52 am

From his letter it sounds like the governor is against tolling. If the Republicans are in favor of user fees on highways I think this may be one area where they have a better policy than the Dems.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby David Greene » May 16th, 2017, 1:53 pm

He was against funding a study to see if people would support tolling. I agree with him that that would be a waste of money. People are not going to say, "Hurray! Charge me to drive on this publicly-funded road!" unless the studies/surveys/information sessions are done carefully with full explanation of pros and cons. I have great doubt that anything the Republicans fund in this area would be adequate. Ultimately lawmakers have to just do what's best for the state and take the political hit. We don't need studies to know that.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 18th, 2017, 7:49 am

I know I'm a couple days late to this, but the bill's text was not adding funding to see if people would support tolling. I don't know if you misunderstood what the GOP wanted or if Dayton did and you're just taking his letter at face value. Here's a link to the bill I believe he was sent: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.p ... 0&type=ccr

and the relevant text around studying tolling:
Sec. 141. REPORT BY COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION ON MNPASS
123.11LANES AND TOLLING.
123.12(a) On or before January 2, 2018, the commissioner of transportation must report to the
123.13chairs and ranking minority members of the senate and house of representatives committees
123.14and divisions with jurisdiction over transportation policy and finance concerning MnPASS
123.15lanes and tolling to reduce congestion and raise revenue.
123.16(b) At a minimum, the report must, with respect to MnPASS lanes:
123.17(1) for each lane, state the capital costs, maintenance and repair costs, and operation
123.18costs;
123.19(2) for each lane, indicate the current condition and the projected life expectancy;
123.20(3) for each lane, list and explain the cost recovery ratio;
123.21(4) list the amounts of the deposit of revenues made each year since pursuant to Minnesota
123.22Statutes, section 160.93, subdivisions 2 and 2a, including a breakdown of deposits for each
123.23lane for each year the lane has been in existence;
123.24(5) list the cost to participate in the MnPASS program, broken down by each year a lane
123.25has been in existence;
123.26(6) for each lane, list the total number of users, including a breakdown of the total number
123.27of each type of user; and
123.28(7) provide an explanation of how MnPASS lane regulations are enforced.
123.29(c) At a minimum, the report must, with respect to tolling:
123.30(1) summarize current state and federal laws that affect the use of tolling in this state;
123.31(2) identify any federal pilot projects for which this state is eligible to participate;
124.1(3) discuss the feasibility and cost of expanding use of tolling, the possibility of private
124.2investment in toll roads, and projected costs and cost recovery in establishing, operating,
124.3and maintaining toll roads;
124.4(4) review tolling models and technology options;
124.5(5) summarize the experience of other states that have widely implemented tolling;
124.6(6) identify and evaluate the feasibility of toll implementation for specific corridors;
124.7(7) project the likely range of revenues that could be generated by wider implementation
124.8of tolling and identify the percentage of revenues that are projected to be paid by nonresidents
124.9of the state;
124.10(8) discuss options for use of tolling revenue and measures to ensure compliance with
124.11laws governing operation of toll roads and use of revenues;
124.12(9) recommend and discuss possible ways to reduce cost to Minnesotans, such as tax
124.13deductions or credits, or types of discounts; and
124.14(10) provide recommendations for needed statutory or rule changes that would facilitate
124.15wider implementation of tolling and achieve maximum revenues for the state and equity
124.16for its residents.
124.17EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
I would say that having studies with clear outcomes, costs vs benefits, technological challenges, experience in other states (or countries!), statutory barriers, etc would be quite helpful in laying out to the public how tolling could be beneficial. Yes, there are plenty of academic papers out there, and (former) local transportation expert David Levinson has written many and certainly advised lawmakers in the past. But I think this would be a helpful study to have from MnDOT to lay the groundwork for a broader implementation of tolling in the state. Even if I personally believe the GOP's interest in it is largely driven by Trump's misguided proposals for PPPs to fund roads & bridges. More generally, it's hard for lawmakers to just go and make a broadly unpopular policy change just because it's "best for the state."

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby David Greene » May 18th, 2017, 10:03 am

Thanks, I did indeed take Dayton's latter at face value. I'm a little suspicious about the MnPASS study described. It sure looks like fishing for reasons to shut it down.

I'm just not sure a typical study is going to do anything at all to sway the public. At least not by itself. I would support a study if it were followed up by an intensive public engagement process that really valued public input as well as public education. Unfortunately, I can think of very few examples of that being done in a useful way. The latter meetings on Bottineau are good examples. Early on the county really botched it but they learned and I was very impressed with the level of engagement in their later meetings.

Engagement takes money, though, which I would support spending. However, I don't have confidence that most legislators on either side of the aisle understand the benefits of spending that money.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 18th, 2017, 12:26 pm

I too was skeptical of the GOP's intent as I read through the language. It wasn't until I got 2/3 of the way through the section that it became mostly clear to me that they were more interested in expanding the program than killing it.

I know this is an unpopular opinion in 2017 America, but this is the type of issue I'm not sure engagement would really help. There are so many examples of tolling systems in this country and across the world, and we know what the benefits would be. I think Dayton is actually right that tolling is not viewed favorably, but sometimes legislators need to make hard policy decisions. We managed to just start rolling out a bunch of MnPASS lanes without a ton of public engagement (and to another thread's point, ramp metering was not well-liked when rolled out, and there are still, ahem, skeptics). Maybe I'm wrong and a full-throttled engagement process would yield a more informed public that's willing to go to bat in supporting their representatives. But transportation funding and policy feels like something representatives frequently propose real policy ideas without a costly engagement process. Dayton & the DFL proposed a gas tax hike + metro sales tax well before a coalition rallied around those ideas. CTIB is breaking up and certain counties will leverage a regressive quarter cent sales tax increase without additional lengthy outreach on if that was the best path. Etc. That said, I do fear how the revenues would be dedicated if we don't have the right people at the table. So.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby David Greene » May 18th, 2017, 1:21 pm

I know this is an unpopular opinion in 2017 America, but this is the type of issue I'm not sure engagement would really help. There are so many examples of tolling systems in this country and across the world, and we know what the benefits would be. I think Dayton is actually right that tolling is not viewed favorably, but sometimes legislators need to make hard policy decisions.
Wait, doesn't this contradict what you said in your immediately previous post? I'm all for public officials just deciding to do tolling. I was responding to your statement that that's not politically possible. Why do we need another study if politicians should just make the hard decisions? If they need one for political cover, fine. So maybe we're violently agreeing. :)
Dayton & the DFL proposed a gas tax hike + metro sales tax well before a coalition rallied around those ideas.
That's not true. There have been various coalitions around that idea since at least 2003. It's not a new idea at all. There's a long history of public support for it. It's true that coalitions get more active where there is a specific proposal on the table and only political leaders can make that happen. But rest assured that there has been continuous lobbying around the metro sales tax for a very long time.

I too worry about implementation of the county taxes, even within Hennepin and Ramsey. There's going to be strong pressure to siphon off some of that money for road work. We need to fight for 100% dedication to transit. I'm sure county roads need work but transit is so far behind it needs everything it can get to catch up.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 18th, 2017, 2:57 pm

Wait, doesn't this contradict what you said in your immediately previous post? I'm all for public officials just deciding to do tolling. I was responding to your statement that that's not politically possible. Why do we need another study if politicians should just make the hard decisions? If they need one for political cover, fine. So maybe we're violently agreeing. :)
Yeah I guess my point was more that MN legislators going and approving a wide expansion of tolling isn't practical (or even advisable) without their own DOT telling them if it's a worthy goal, how much it'd cost, how much revenue it'd bring in, etc etc. With all that info at least they'd be able to make sane policy recommendations even if they're unpopular. Shorter, yes, political cover.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby David Greene » May 24th, 2017, 10:15 am

I have called Dayton's office (651-201-3400) and asked him to veto any transportation bill that doesn't fully fund transit, meaning it leads to fare increases and/or service cuts. It's morally wrong to do such things when we have a budget surplus.

I encourage you to do the same. AFAIK there is nothing in the transportation budget deal for transit. But since we're all left in the dark, who knows? Best to make our message loud and clear now.

phop
Landmark Center
Posts: 207
Joined: May 28th, 2013, 8:58 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2017-18 MN Legislative Session & Budget (Djayton Unchained)

Postby phop » May 24th, 2017, 11:06 am

Can someone explain how this has made it in to the transportation budget bill? Is there something unique about Calhoun Isles, or this shady backroom dealing? To me, this almost reads like a backdoor mechanism to further delay SWLRT via statute-enabled litigation.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.p ... n_number=1
VIBRATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ON CALHOUN ISLES PROPERTY.
(a) Before commencement of Southwest light rail transit construction activities, the
Metropolitan Council must develop and implement a project-eligible plan to prevent vibration
impacts to the Calhoun Isles property, including the high-rise building, townhomes, and
parking ramp, due to Southwest light rail transit project construction activities and operations.
The council must develop the plan at its expense.
(b) The plan must include requirements to:
(1) develop a vibration control plan for periods during construction and post construction;
(2) limit vibration levels to those established by the Federal Transit Administration;
(3) conduct pre- and post-construction inspections of buildings;
(4) install and monitor instrumentation to identify ground and building movements on
the Calhoun Isles property during construction;
(5) use equipment and methods to minimize vibration during construction and during
light rail transit operations; and
(6) conduct equipment tests for all significant vibration-generating equipment used for
construction adjacent to the Calhoun Isles property.
(c) The council must categorize the Calhoun Isles property buildings based on criteria
established by the Federal Transit Administration.
(d) The council must ensure that (1) monitoring under paragraph (b), clause (4), begins
30 days before commencement of construction activities adjacent to the Calhoun Isles
property; and (2) tests under paragraph (b), clause (6), are conducted before commencement
of the associated construction activities.
(e) The council must make reasonable efforts to coordinate and cooperate with the
Calhoun Isles Condominium Association for (1) pre- and post-construction inspections,
instrumentation installation, and monitoring on the Calhoun Isles property; and (2) activities
to establish valid categorization of buildings.
(f) Before commencement of Southwest light rail transit construction activities, the
council must establish a fair and objective damage claims process to address claims
attributable to construction and operations activities.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amiller92 and 10 guests