Amid concern about its size — or lack thereof — the House Capital Investment Committee approved a $600 million bonding plan Wednesday night.

Sponsored by Rep. Dean Urdahl (R-Grove City), HF892, as amended, was approved on a split voice vote. It next goes to the House Ways and Means Committee. (A spreadsheet of the bill).

“This is a starting point to what we are doing,” Urdahl said, noting expected future negotiations with Gov. Mark Dayton and others. “This bill will change. … I can’t say what number, but it will be bigger than today.”

Rep. Lyndon Carlson Sr. (DFL-Crystal) noted the House Budget Resolution provides $800 million for a capital investment bill.

“The number I’ve been given tonight is $600 million,” said Urdahl, the committee chair.

“To say many of us are disappointed in the size of this bill would be an understatement,” said Rep. Raymond Dehn (DFL-Mpls). “I hope you fight hard with your leadership to increase this dollar amount.”

More than 30 DFL amendments were offered. All were withdrawn or defeated.

By law, capital investment bills need supermajority approval, 81 votes in the House, to be enacted. Republicans hold a 77-57 seat advantage.

About 81 percent of the bill is for infrastructure, including $240.2 million for transportation work, $139.8 million for water-related projects and $106 million for facilities preservation.

Dayton unveiled a $1.5 billion proposal in January. Sponsored by Sen. David Senjem (R-Rochester),  SF210, a $1.6 billion proposal — including $744.5 million in general-obligation bonding and $201.9 million in General Fund spending — awaits action by the full Senate.

Myron Frans, commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, said more than $3.7 billion in requests were submitted.

“We have the resources to make these investments for the projects to help Minnesota move forward,” he said.

Odd-numbered years are traditionally focused on establishing a state budget with a smaller bonding bill; even-numbered years are often centered on a large capital investment plan.

“Most of what we are doing … is what should have passed into law last time,” Urdahl said.

Things went awry just before the curtain closed on the 2016 session, leading to no capital investment bill.

A House vote was taken in the chaotic final minutes of the final day on a plan introduced a few hours earlier. The DFL-controlled Senate added a plan to pay for the controversial Southwest light-rail project just before the clock struck midnight, but the House had adjourned sine die. Capital investment was part of the unsuccessful special session discussion over the final seven months of 2016.

Urdahl said he doesn’t want to see a repeat.

“If I had my druthers, heck, we’d do the bill next week. … I don’t want to come in the last night of session with this bill and have what happened happen again,” he said.

Some DFL members noted that last year’s failure meant a lost construction season and potential higher construction costs.

“We have low interest rates, and if we don’t take advantage it will cost Minnesota millions of dollars,” Carlson said.

Funding in the proposal includes:

• $59.25 million for the local road improvement program;
• $59 million for local bridge replacement;
• $57.02 million for rail grade separation crossings in Moorhead and Red Wing oncrude oil rail corridors;
• $40 million in wastewater infrastructure;
• $32.48 million for the Minnesota State system, including $25 million in asset preservation; and projects for:
  
  • South Central College - STEM and Healthcare renovation - North Mankato
  • Minnesota State Community and Technical College - Center for Student Success - Fergus Falls
  • Minnesota State Community and Technical College - Library and Student Development renovation - Wadena
  • Northland Community and Technical College - Laboratory renovation - East Grand Forks
• $30 million in asset preservation at the University of Minnesota;
• $15 million for Department of Natural Resources asset preservation;
• $11.5 million for four flood hazard mitigations; and
• $10 million for public housing rehabilitation.

Map of selected projects in the bill

Nearly 70 people testified before the committee, most lamenting what the bill lacks. Arguments included meeting immediate needs, further deterioration of collegiate buildings, making better use of our natural resources and loss of federal dollars associated with projects.

Brian Yolitz, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities, Minnesota State shared with the committee that at the proposed level of funding in the bill, the impact would be felt at only about a dozen campuses.

He went on to say, "however, we respectfully submit that this is not enough to take care of the buildings and infrastructure requirements at our 54 campuses.  As you know, our colleges and universities include nearly 30 million square feet of total facility space and represent nearly one-third of the state’s real estate.  The limited capital investment over the last couple of years, particularly in terms of HEAPR has put a strain on already stressed campus operating budgets as colleges and universities make Band-Aid repairs to systems that should have been upgraded or replaced and clean up after system failures like roof leaks."