Back At It – Raid of Legacy Funds in MN

From the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
So far we’ve kept our elected officials from breaking into this piggy bank, but I wonder how long it will be before they take a hammer to it and run to the candy store.

April 11, 2017
Raiding the constitutionally dedicated Legacy Amendment funds

In 2008, Minnesota’s voters passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. Knowing we needed to do more to protect and restore our water, land, habitat, parks and trails, arts and cultural heritage, citizens voted to increase the state sales tax by 3/8ths of 1% in order to supplement our state’s investment in these shared priorities.

When asked, the primary reason voters cited for supporting the amendment was to clean up and protect water.* And according to a recent statewide poll, support for the Legacy Amendment is higher than it has ever been – fully 75% of Minnesotans support the Legacy Amendment.**

So it is more than a little bewildering that right now legislators are moving forward with measures to raid the Legacy Amendment’s Clean Water Fund, and bypass the recommendations that have been made by the Clean Water Council – a council that was set up to guide the use of the Legacy funds.

Please ask your State Senator to fix the Legacy Amendment raid.

For those of you who like details, here are some of the major raids on our constitutionally dedicated Legacy Amendment funds. It is complex, but important. If the legislature starts to use these funds even when state coffers are full, the funds will never be able to fulfill their intended purpose for the people of Minnesota.

Raids on the Legacy Amendment

S. F. 566 raids the Clean Water Fund — one of the four separate funds established by the Legacy Amendment — shifting $22 million away from drinking water protections, agricultural initiatives that clean water, and watershed restoration.

These are priorities, extensively vetted and recommended by the Clean Water Council, designed to improve the quality of Minnesota’s waters – 40% of which currently do not meet basic health standards.

These cuts:

De-fund drinking water protections
Reduce funding for the University of Minnesota’s Forever Green Initiative – a program that is successfully developing new cover and perennial crops that protect water quality, soil health and support habitat while enhancing farm profitability.

Slow the pace of watershed restoration by cutting these programs by nearly $6 million.

Instead of following the recommendations of the Clean Water Council and funding these priorities, the Senate bill spends this $22 million on administrative costs for local governments – costs that should be coming from the state’s General Fund as provided in Governor Dayton’s budget.

We’d like Senators also to be alert to a provision that has already passed the House that raids the Legacy Amendment’s Outdoor Heritage Fund to make additional payments to local governments – payments that have previously been funded through the General Fund.

Presently, state government makes payments to local units of government from the General Fund for pieces of land that have been acquired by the state and therefore no longer generate property taxes for local governments. This appropriation is often known as PILT, or payment in lieu of taxes. The House of Representatives passed H.F. 586 that requires a one-time payment from the Legacy Amendment Funds of 30 times the assessed property taxes for any piece of land purchased by those funds.

While purchasing land in order to protect habitat, wildlife and water is consistent with the purpose and goal of these Legacy Funds, providing property tax revenue to local governments is not. And we believe this to be unconstitutional.

And in addition, a poison pill in the House bill states that, should the courts find this law to be unconstitutional, the Outdoor Heritage Fund (and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund) will be prohibited from acquiring further lands.

This bill will not only degrades the ability of the Legacy Amendment funds to protect, restore or enhance land, water and wildlife, it will set a terrible precedent – that constitutionally dedicated funding and voters’ action can be subverted.

Raiding the constitutionally dedicated Legacy Amendment funds breaks faith with Minnesota voters. And it moves us in the wrong direction.

Please contact your State Senator this week and ask him or her to fix the raid and follow the recommendations made by the citizen councils.
Act Now
Thank you for all you do.
In Partnership,
Sara Wolff
Minnesota Environmental Partnership

Resources:

Legacy Amendment Fact Sheet

MEP Letter Regarding House Legacy Appropriations Bills

Dennis Anderson Star Tribune article on April 7, 2017: “House-passed Legacy bill harebrained”

* A statewide telephone poll in December 2008 found that 42% of voters who had a specific reason for supporting the amendment did so in order to clean up and protect Minnesota’s lakes, rivers and streatms. from Lake Research Partners conducted by the bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates and Public Opinion Strategies.

** A statewide telephone poll in February 2017 conducted by the bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates and Public Opinion Strategies.

Well, you vote for what you get. The right side of the aisle has consistently been against anything smacking of environmental protections and this is just one more case. It will only get worse.

gordonk wrote:

Well, you vote for what you get. The right side of the aisle has consistently been against anything smacking of environmental protections and this is just one more case. It will only get worse.

The MN House and Senate are just getting warmed up as they follow the narrative that is being passed down from our Nation’s Capital. I’m far from a liberal supporter/advocate, but there is major cause for concern for any person who enjoys fishing, hunting, or other outdoor recreational hobbies. People from this site and others supporting the outdoors need to take a long hard look at their ballots in the near future.

Our resources are facing more issues than ever (invasive species, increased pressure, increased technology, netting, rising water temperatures, cuts to funding, etc.). If people think ignoring the issues will fix them, they will be the ones wondering where it all went wrong a couple short decades from now.

For those of you who fished Mille Lacs through the 90’s, early 2000’s, or decades earlier you cannot say you EVER could have predicted C & R only seasons as the “Walleye Factory” of the Upper Midwest.

I’m guessing the real reason for the push is related to this part just below the part Brian highlighted.

“And in addition, a poison pill in the House bill states that, should the courts find this law to be unconstitutional, the Outdoor Heritage Fund (and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund) will be prohibited from acquiring further lands.”

My guess is that some feel there is budget growth related to lands currently acquired through the legacy funds that shouldn’t fall into the general funds.

buckybadger wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gordonk wrote:</div>
Well, you vote for what you get. The right side of the aisle has consistently been against anything smacking of environmental protections and this is just one more case. It will only get worse.

The MN House and Senate are just getting warmed up as they follow the narrative that is being passed down from our Nation’s Capital. I’m far from a liberal supporter/advocate, but there is major cause for concern for any person who enjoys fishing, hunting, or other outdoor recreational hobbies. People from this site and others supporting the outdoors need to take a long hard look at their ballots in the near future.

Our resources are facing more issues than ever (invasive species, increased pressure, increased technology, netting, rising water temperatures, cuts to funding, etc.). If people think ignoring the issues will fix them, they will be the ones wondering where it all went wrong a couple short decades from now.

For those of you who fished Mille Lacs through the 90’s, early 2000’s, or decades earlier you cannot say you EVER could have predicted C & R only seasons as the “Walleye Factory” of the Upper Midwest.

Thanks for this, it’s precisely how I’ve felt for quite sometime and both posts are very well written. I’d urge everyone to pay attention to the actions of our elected officials along with what bills your officials present and how they vote.

Take a hard look at who’s really trying to provide you opportunity to have and enjoy clean air, land, and water because without those things, none of us have anything.

______________ wrote:

I’m guessing the real reason for the push is related to this part just below the part Brian highlighted.

“And in addition, a poison pill in the House bill states that, should the courts find this law to be unconstitutional, the Outdoor Heritage Fund (and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund) will be prohibited from acquiring further lands.”

My guess is that some feel there is budget growth related to lands currently acquired through the legacy funds that shouldn’t fall into the general funds.

Disagree with your closing statement – IMO they’re trying to shut off and/or redirect the spigot of $$ for Legacy Funds.

Main issue of purchasing funds for conservation is it takes those plots off the tax rolls of the county, reducing income base and counties have been complaining about it for a while.

The 30X initial pmt is the redirection where the poison pill would help cut off the flow to redirect it further. If they make it too onerous for the Legacy Funds to purchase land, it could be argued the $$ should go somewhere else it can be “appropriated better”, i.e. put in someone’s pocket instead of benefiting the public as a whole.

This is EXACTLY what I said would happen when it was being presented… been happening since.

Yes every year they attempt to make the money grab. Every year to date they have failed. All the I told you so guys need to take a look at how many millions have made it to the environment as intended that would never have been available without the amendment.

Now we just need to protect what we have.

I was googleing IDO and the LF’s. Every year someone in St Paul tries some tricks with these funds as every year it’s reported here on Ido.

I guess if I thought I could get a new boat out of these funds, I would try too.

We all know it’s easier to make your belt bigger than to make it smaller. It’s much easier for the St. Paul clown show to attempt to steal the funds money then to actually do what they were elected to do which is to manage the state in the most efficient way.

the biggest shell game has already been played… with legacy funds to cover the costs, million$ in general funds money has already been funneled away from the outdoors, the parks, the water and the arts. this was my biggest fear and happened almost immediately back when it passed.

big_g wrote:

the biggest shell game has already been played… with legacy funds to cover the costs, million$ in general funds money has already been funneled away from the outdoors, the parks, the water and the arts. this was my biggest fear and happened almost immediately back when it passed.

Yep.
And when the LF sunsets they will all be arguing about tax increases to replace lost revenue from the general fund. They will get those increases. Then come back and triple down by restarting the LF.

It’s still a mistake in my book.

The Legacy Amendment in it’s purist form was a boom for the outdoors. It’s the elected officials who wanted to get their mitts on the money that ruined what was a great thing.

I wholeheartedly agreed with the concept, so as long as it was not used to “replace” general funds monies that was historically for the outdoors…. which it almost immediately did.

Dutchboy wrote:

The Legacy Amendment in it’s purist form was a boom for the outdoors. It’s the elected officials who wanted to get their mitts on the money that ruined what was a great thing.

It’s what they do. You expect a tiger to change its spots?

As voters, I wonder if we ever learn anything. As an example, this last election had a ballot question about an independent committee to review legislative pay.

Talking about that with a coworker before the election she thought it was a great idea. No more drama during sessions.
I then explained to her that they are creating an un-elected body that has the ability to spend money. This un-elected body would be appointed by the people that will benefit from one decision. Who do you think will be appointed to this council? Of course they will appoint people that would be willing to agree to raise their pay.
And being un-elected, there is no recourse for the voter to remove them from the council.

It was one of the stupidest things I’ve seen in recent years but yet it passed with flying colors. And what, a week(?) into the session they recommend a huge pay increase? Color me shocked. :rolleyes:

If you put an asset in front of a politician, they will try to control it. It’s what they do.

yeah and now some of them do not want to take the increase because they think it will cost them their seats come november…

Kyhl wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
The Legacy Amendment in it’s purist form was a boom for the outdoors. It’s the elected officials who wanted to get their mitts on the money that ruined what was a great thing.

It’s what they do. You expect a tiger to change its spots?

Doesn’t a tiger have stripes? Oh, maybe that was your point??

This is quite the lede for Anderson’s newest article.

Challenging as it is for a political party to be in favor of gun rights but against hunting, Minnesota Republicans appear to have achieved that distinction. This is a widely viewed assessment of the assault on public lands underway in the Republican-controlled Legislature this session.

To those above who say “I told you so” – congrats, now what are you going to do about it? Like it or not, the amendment has been in effect for 8 years now and it isn’t going away.

It’s in everyone’s best interest to keep it functioning as the intended use instead of the proposed gutting that’s on the table now. It’s imperative to pay attention to what’s happening or one day you’ll look up and it’ll be too late.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-legislature-waging-assault-on-our-vital-public-lands/419543223/

zooks wrote:

This is quite the lede for Anderson’s newest article.

Challenging as it is for a political party to be in favor of gun rights but against hunting, Minnesota Republicans appear to have achieved that distinction.

Since when have politicians found it challenging to contradict themselves — it’s their defining characteristic!