By Shannon Fiecke

Correspondent

Tired of sitting at the stoplights on Highway 169 in the morning on your way to work?

Improving the interchange at Highway 169 and Interstate 494 is among a list of projects the state department of transportation says it could jump-start if voters approve a constitutional amendment on Nov. 7.

The ballot question would amend the state constitution to dedicate the existing motor vehicle sales tax entirely to transportation projects.

Although the tax was originally intended to go to roads, bridges and transit, only 54 percent is used for such purposes. The rest is siphoned into the state’s general fund and used for other expenses, like education and public safety.

The language of the constitutional question – what some deem a legislative mishap – is confusing because it implies the creation of a new tax. Also, its prescribed split of funding to highways vs. transit is not what some legislators intended.

Indeed, most opposition to the amendment lies in the details of the amendment, not the concept. Still, while many proponents agree the language isn’t preferable, they still support passage.

Ballot language: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?”

In a nutshell: The amendment would require all motor vehicle sales taxes to be spent on transportation-related projects. Monies that are currently being spent elsewhere (about 46 percent) would be shifted to transportation gradually over five years. Once fully implemented, at least 40 percent of the funds would be used for transit, like buses or rail, and the remainder would improve Minnesota’s highway systems.

Siphoned tax: Since 1981, $6 billion of the tax has been spent on non-transportation-related expenses. Currently, 46 percent of the vehicle tax goes into the general fund to be spent on health care, education and other purposes. Another 31 percent is spent on roads or bridges, and 23 percent goes to transit.

40/60 split: The amendment says at least 40 percent of the motor vehicle tax will have to be spent on transit once the measure is fully implemented. No more than 60 percent can be used for highway purposes. There’s no guarantee the state wouldn’t spend more than 40 percent on transit.

Opponents: Some believe passage would hurt education and state-supported programs by taking away $300 million annually from the general fund once fully implemented, and the state should instead raise the gas tax. Others support the concept, but say there’s no guarantee 60 percent of the tax will be used for roads and bridges, or they don’t think even 40 percent of the tax should fund transit. Out-state communities worry much of the tax could end up funding transit projects that benefit the metro area.

Others don’t think the state constitution should deal with such a subject or get into such details as prescribing what percentage of the vehicle tax should be spent on roads vs. transit.

Proponents: They believe the tax should only be spent on roads and transit, and the Constitution has to be amended because the Legislature has been unable to hold itself to dedicating all of the tax to transportation. Supporters say the tax will be shifted gradually from the general fund and, once fully implemented, will constitute less than 1 percent of the budget. They say projections show higher tax revenues produced by economic growth will cover the transfer of the tax for at least the immediate future. While many proponents don’t like the prescribed amount for transit, they argue the amendment would still substantially increase the level of funding for roads. They also argue the break-down between transit and road funding is similar to current levels – a 43 to 57 split – for the tax, and it’s highly unlikely the Legislature would switch much more to transit.

$$$: If the amendment passes, an extra $300 million would go toward transportation once fully implemented in 2011. There would be an additional $2.57 billion in 10 years.

Under current appropriate levels, the tax would increase state aid for Scott County roads by $4 million in a 10-year period. It would boost aid for city roads in Prior Lake by $705,735 during the same timeframe. Likewise, Savage would net an additional $806,746, and Shakopee, another $964,040.

The governor has proposed using the state portion of the vehicle tax for debt service on his $2.5 billion transportation investment plan designed to accelerate dozens of highway projects through bonding. Ultimately, however, funding for such projects will be decided by future governors and Legislatures.

Other transportation taxes: The constitution already dedicates the state gas tax and auto license fees to roads.

Blank vote: Approval of the amendment requires the majority of all people voting. When the ballot question is left blank, it will be considered a “no” vote.

Shannon Fiecke can be reached at (952) 345-6679 or sfiecke@swpub.com [2].