Outdoor, arts amendment (MAYBE) headed to the voters

[h2ofwlr]

Outdoor, arts amendment headed to the voters
Debate was long and emotional before the House joined the Senate in proposing to voters a sales tax hike with the money dedicated to the outdoors and the arts.

By Mark Brunswick, Star Tribune
Last update: May 20, 2007 ? 12:25 PM
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1195011.html

Voters are likely to find a constitutional amendment on their 2008 ballot asking whether they want to change the state's constitution and raise the state sales tax to fund fish and wildlife habitat, clean up the state's waters, and fund arts and cultural heritage programs.
In an early morning vote as the Legislature began winding down toward its Monday adjournment deadline, the House voted 86 to 46 at 2:23 a.m. Sunday after nearly 4 1/2 hours of debate to approve the constitutional amendment. Almost a decade in the making, the measure would, if voters approve, raise the state's sales tax 3/8ths of one percent for 25 years. It is expected to generate about $291 million a year.

The House bill calls for divvying up the funds with 25 percent for fish and wildlife habitat, 25 percent to protect and restore waters, 15 percent for parks and trails, 10 percent for the arts and cultural heritage, and 10 percent to be used to fund the programs as the Legislature deems necessary.

It would take effect in July 2009.

The House version would have to reconciled with a different Senate version that distributes the money in different proportions. But a constitutional amendment would not require the signature of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has said he would not sign a tax increase. Instead, the constitutional amendment would go straight to the voters.

"This is not a perfect bill and not a perfect way to do it but we can't let that get in the way of making sure we have clean air and water and habitat for our children and grandchildren," said Rep. Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, the bill's chief author. "Our water, our habitat, our heritage need this funding."

Intense debate

Debate on the measure was spirited and at times heated, and focused on whether it was wise to raise taxes or to dedicate funding through the state constitution rather than by statute. Opponents also suggested that the arts, a late-comer to the game, should not be included in a bill that outdoor groups have worked almost 10 years to get approved. Some compared the arts groups to the guy on the fishing trip who doesn't fill the bait box or clean the boat but is always there to eat the shore lunch.

"This has not been about adding on to the sales tax. This has always been about taking a little tiny sliver of the millions of dollars for those of us who enjoy the outdoors and putting it back into what we are enjoying now so that our kids and grand kids can enjoy it later on," said Rep. Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove.

Rep. Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, predicted the measure would fail with voters because it adds too much of an increase and tries to appeal to too many constituencies.

"It's too heavy and will die under its own weight," Sviggum said.

Sertich said that including the arts and cultural heritage provides a broader coalition to get the amendment passed.

"I believe cultural heritage is more broad than just the arts," Sertich said. "I believe they are just as important to Minnesota's heritage as hunting and fishing. It unites our entire state to pass this amendment on the ballot."

Crisis claimed

Supporters say the state's lands and waters have been neglected for years and the dedication is needed to assure proper funding to care for the exploited resources.

"I do think it's a crisis. We have low amounts of environmental funding. We need to spend more on conservation and we are at a point when Minnesota is changing," said Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska. "The arts are important. But it's not urgent."

Numerous amendments failed, including a measure that would take 3/8ths of one percent from the existing sales tax rather than increase it and others that allowed nursing homes, agricultural programs and early childhood education to share in the funding stream.

The outdoors amendment, as it is known, had high-powered support in both the House and Senate, which passed the bill 52-14 nine days ago. Its Senate author is Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis.

Even as long-patient hunters and anglers waited in the corridors of the Capitol and in the House gallery, the amendment was being used as bait in a global negotiating strategy this weekend. The future votes of outdoor sports enthusiasts, frustrated by inaction on the measure over the years, could be influenced by whether and how the amendment passed.


Mark Brunswick ? 651-222-1636 ? mbrunswick@startribune.com

[JohnWester]

i will vote no.  damn arts.

[h2ofwlr]

I hate the Arts too.  But we'll see what the conference Comm comes up with.  House is at 10% and Senate at 24%.  Likely it'll be 15-20%.   

SO DO WE THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER?

Meaning 80% of the $291M goes for waters and wildlife.  That is 6 Billion over 25 years that could have been going to turn around our waters and land in MN.  Granted 1.5 B would go for Arts and BS, but that is the hand that is dealt us.  The good thing is ALL the citizens would help pay for it, not just us hunters and fishermen.  All citizens benifit, so all should help pay for it IMHO.

And we did not want it as an additional tax, just shift the $ out of the existing sales tax is what was originally planned years ago.  It was the DFL that insisted it be a new tax.  The GOP last year had proposed that it come out of existing taxes.  And the DFL Senate would not budge last June so no passed bill.  Well the voters last Fall put the DFL in control of the House too.  So the bottom line is as long as the DFL in control of at least 1 houses there would have been at least some sort of new tax, and now they control both houses.  And it'll be a very long time when the GOP will have control of both houses so the DFA could be done as it should have been.   BTW the additional tax amounts to $56 per year per person in MN.

So just be careful not to judge this issue without all the facts and consequences so you can make an informed educated decision.

Besides--it is not a done deal yet.  We'll know in 31 hrs as that is the deadline.

[tripnchip]

h2o, I am getting confused here. In your first post you give numbers of 25 percent for fish and wildlife, 25% to protect and restore water way, 15% for parks and trails,10% for arts and 10% to fund programs as leg. sees necessary.
In the 2nd post you say 80 percent will go to wildlife and water.
 Why my confusion, in post 1 the numbers only come up to 85% where the other 15% going
In post 2 you say water and wildlife gets 80% now that only leaves 5% of the 85% that was accounted for in post 1 and we still don't know what happen to the 15% not accounted for in Post one.
 I'm not sure how I would vote , but the # are confusing me here. What does upset me about so meny of the bill's the public gets to vote on is that they are not given the full truth of a bill or the bill is altered after getting passed.
  Just my thoughts but then I'm not that informed either.

[h2ofwlr]

That is a copy of the newspaper article, they did not mention the other 10%, in which the legislature could spend toward any of the other 4 programs, meaning they have descrition where it is spent (this was left out of the article).

The article above is the House version of the bill, the Senate is different %s.     I think the compromise will be about 80% to water and wildlife.  Meaning the Arts BS would get about 20%   Read below the bold.

This is NOT a done deal as the conference comm AND BOTH houses have to approve before midnight tonight.  They still are in Conference Comm to iron out the differences.  Here is an updated new article about it.

If you want to know what we sportsmen have been and are up against, look at lobbyists for the Arts. And only a few are mentioned, but there are many more.


Outdoors and arts tax: Who would get what?
A constitutional amendment appears to be on its way to voters. But, first, agreement is needed on how to divide the dollars.

By Pat Doyle, Star Tribune
Last update: May 20, 2007 ? 11:46 PM
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1195631.html

While arts and outdoors groups took a major step this weekend toward raising taxes to fund their causes, they faced a possible fight in the final hours of the legislative session over how to share the money.
The House early Sunday and the Senate a week ago opted to let voters decide whether to amend the state Constitution to dedicate new sales tax money to fish and wildlife habitat, water restoration and preservation and the arts.

But the Senate version would give more than twice as much money to the arts and cultural heritage -- creating a possible culture clash within a marriage of interest groups when the measures go to conference committee, where negotiators will try to settle the differences.

"There are folks that want habitat, folks that want water, folks that want parks, arts," said Lance Ness, head of the Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance. "And eventually those groups have got to come together and they have to sell this to all the rest of the citizens of Minnesota."They know this has got to be something that everyone can take home to their particular constituents," Ness said.

Both Ness and Bill Strusinski, who represents Friends of Minnesota Public Television, predicted Sunday that the final version would dedicate more money for the arts than the House set aside, but not as much as the Senate dedicated.

Advocates expected considerable dickering over carving up possible future revenues.

"Everybody's got their constituencies working hard on the conferees," said Strusinski, referring to the committee that will seek compromise between the two measures.

Larry Redmund, a lobbyist for Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, added, "I think there will be some complicated deliberations."

Two ways of slicing pie

Both bills would give voters the option of raising the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent and earmark the funds over 25 years to finance outdoors and arts interests. The measures overcame philosophical objections to funding by constitutional amendment and passed by wide margins, suggesting there is plenty of wiggle room for compromise.

The measures differed significantly on how to distribute the money to various funds.

The House version, sponsored by Rep. Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, would use at least 25 percent of the money to preserve or restore fish and wildlife habitat. At least another 25 percent would be used to protect and restore waters, 15 percent for parks and trails, and 15 percent to protect drinking water.  Only 10 percent was guaranteed for the arts. Another 10 percent of the new revenues could be used to put more money into any of the funds..

The Senate bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, would use 24 percent of the money for arts and art education and historic sites. Thirty-three percent of the money would go to restore and preserve fish and wildlife habitat and 43 percent for protecting and restoring waters.

A bill calling for a vote on a constitutional amendment would not require the signature of Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Ness predicted that the compromise version would call for dedicating 10-15 percent to arts.

"Probably 15 percent is pretty realistic for the arts," Strusinski said.

Pat Doyle ? 651-222-1210