Crazy this even comes up. Whether you are an Dem or Republican please VOTE YES to keep lottery proceed money coming to the great outdoors, about $75 million a year.
An important item for Minnesota voters to watch for on their November ballot is a constitutional amendment vote that would continue to send lottery proceeds to the environment and outdoors for another 25 years.
Thank you for bringing this up. I will be be voting yes to keeping lottery funds going to the outdoors.
The vast majority of lottery proceeds were supposed to go to the outdoors. When the legislature (not specifying a party) found out how much money was being generated they started taking more and more of it for other “stuff”.
Yea id be a bit cautious of voting yes on this. Voting no doesn’t end the proceeds going to the outdoors, from what I read it gives the legislature the right to form a committee to allocate funds not necessarily for the outdoors.
Yea id be a bit cautious of voting yes on this. Voting no doesn’t end the proceeds going to the outdoors, from what I read it gives the legislature the right to form a committee to allocate funds not necessarily for the outdoors.
Why? Voting yes means 40% goes to ENRTF (Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund) and 60% goes to the general fund. Voting no means 100% goes to the general fund. Money in the ENRTF can only be spent on “protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.” Money in the general fund can be allocated any way they want with no guarantees of any amount going to these causes. Seems like a no-brainer to vote yes to me.
A crossed out line mean language being removed, and an underline means language being added. They are trying to change the amount of money that can be borrowed against the fund. Voting no will put this money into the general fund unless other legislation is written after the election.
NO! This is a trick. It’s worded to trick you. It allows them to use the funds for anything and removes them from legislative control. No matter who gets voted in, it will never be able to be undone.
IMG_0432.jpeg
Another thing to remember is that not picking either option is a “no” vote.
The constitutional dedication of lottery dollars to ENRTF is set to expire, a 50% vote from Minnesota citizens is needed. This isn’t something legislatures can pass.
Some might be getting this fund confused with the clean water legacy amendment/outdoor heritage fund. Which has another 10 years.
You can see all of the projects funded for 2024 here. A large portion of this fund assists with permanent conservation easements on private lands- RIM. the LCCMR oversees and recommends to legislature how these dollars are used.
If your getting your information from Facebook, feel free to use the link provided and read the actual changes. The statutory changes that result from a successful yes vote are probably the most “scary” thing you will read. Its easy to be against some of the language provided in the statute, but statutes can in fact be changed. The commision tribal requirements are statute and can be changed by lawmakers. The constitutional amendment for the division of lottery funds however cannot be if passed.
NO! This is a trick. It’s worded to trick you. It allows them to use the funds for anything and removes them from legislative control. No matter who gets voted in, it will never be able to be undone.
It allows an additional 1.5% for a new grants program, not to use all of it for “anything”, and does not reduce the original 5.5% that could be spent. Anything removed would have to paid from the general fund instead, that’s the same as if 100% of the money went to the general fund in the first place. It can also be undone because it needs renewal every 25 years, that’s why it’s on the ballot again.
“Historically, the Department of Natural Resources and the University of Minnesota have received the largest appropriations from the ENRTF”
Voting “no” removes a large amount of guaranteed money going to the DNR.
Apparently if I include links my posts don’t appear, 
but on LCCMR’s website you can see the projects funded under 2024 appropriations.
From ballotpedia, regarding the screenshot above regarding wastewater plants-
The assets of the fund shall not be used to pay the principal or interest of any bonds. The assets of the fund shall not be used to pay for any costs related to the construction, repair, improvement, or operation of any facility or system that processes wastewater, but may be used to pay for research related to wastewater.
Sounds fine to me! Construction of wastewater treatment plants shouldn’t be funded with natural resources dollars.
For every dollar spent on playing the lottery:
Approximately 63.9 cents is paid out in player prizes;
Approximately 12.6 cents goes toward the state’s General Fund;
Approximately 6.7 cents goes towards retailer commissions and incentives;
Approximately 5.9 cents goes towards ticket, vendor, and administrative costs;
Approximately 6.2 cents goes towards the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund;
Approximately 4.7 cents goes towards other programs supporting Minnesota’s environment.
dont shoot the messenger!!!!! it WILL NOT end lottery proceeds to the enviromnent!! i posted this to think about this in more detail.
and NO it doesnt end the money currently allocated to the DNR!!!
Muncy’s attachment pretty much sums up what i got out of it.
that committee that gets formed would need to include native Americans and blacks…….and i HAVE NO issue with that. but it may derail were money goes.
to me the scary part the authors of this amendment language change are legislatures from 18 metro areas!
This is how it actually appears on the ballot.
IMG_4354.png
As stated by the legislator who posted on Facebook… there will be a ton of new “wastewater” research going on and no actual monies for the addressing of it.
As stated by the legislator who posted on Facebook… there will be a ton of new “wastewater” research going on and no actual monies for the addressing of it.
It’s nonsense. The fund was never intended for those types of projects, wasn’t historically used for it, and isn’t currently used for it.
In 2018 the legislature appropriated money from the fund for that purpose and the state was sued by the MCEA for violating state constitution.
In 2019 that legislation was reversed and now that the amendment is up for renewal they are specifically saying it can’t be used for that so it isn’t tried again.
Some info about it here: https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2018/10/lawsuit-over-environmental-trust-fund-may-have-implications-for-legacy-amendment-money/
Another thing to keep in mind, this will also include a new steering committee with a forced race majority.
463614688_10160493298694290_3061459136382907834_n.jpg
Another thing to keep in mind, this will also include a new steering committee with a forced race majority.
This for the Community Grant Program, the additional 1.5% of spending allowed. The 17 member LCCMR who recommends how to allocate the traditional 5.5% does not change as far as I know.
It’s also not quite accurate. There must be 11 members but “In addition to the members appointed under paragraph (a), the commissioner, in consultation with the commissioners of health and the Pollution Control Agency, may appoint up to eight additional residents of Minnesota to the advisory council when, in the commissioner’s discretion, it is necessary to ensure that the advisory council is sufficiently representative of various Minnesota communities.”
It’s defined here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/116X/full#stat.116X.05.2
There may be some garbage included but if voted no the state loses a ton of money allotted for wildlife. Once taken away it will be next to impossible to get back….
I am old enough to remember when they were pushing for legalizing the Lottery in Mn… it was gonna be SO MUCH MONEY for the Outdoors…. meh.
I see their 11 person committee will be set up with Race to be a contingency… no more than 2 Ojibwe & 2 Dakota Tribe members allowed and no more than 4 People of Color allowed.
What am I missing here ??? Looks like the monies can be used for wastewater research to me ?
AMENDMENT.jpg
It cant be used to build wastewater treatment, but can be used to study wastewater. Like is there poop in my river, or is the storm drain harming the fish type of stuff. Probably research grants, but maybe monitoring.
What am I missing here ??? Looks like the monies can be used for wastewater research to me ?
Yes, it can be used for research. The Hudson post you referenced says:
“It changes it to disallow usage of these funds for infrastructure like waste water treatment plants and redirects that money to “research”. So, instead of making a tangible real-world difference in water quality…”
You said there will be “no actual monies for the addressing of it. ”
The only time they tried to use the ENRTF for that purpose was in 2018. Aside from that one year there will be no difference around waste water treatment funding in the new version and money for it will come from sources other than the ENRTF like it always has, except for one year.
I assume pull tabs are part of the lottery and if they are look out fellas.I think EP will control most of that money.
So I’m a few bourbons in and got bored reading a few responses…
To sum it up, do I need to vote “Yes” or “No”? I’m someone who values the outdoors and wants the maximum amount of money tagged solely to the outdoors as possible, versus the general fund/free for all accounts
My conclusion based on what I’ve read above is that this isn’t the place to find an unbiased read on the issue. If you care about the issue then you care enough to dig in. I will refrain from sharing my personal opinion and muddying the waters further.
So I’m a few bourbons in and got bored reading a few responses…
To sum it up, do I need to vote “Yes” or “No”? I’m someone who values the outdoors and wants the maximum amount of money tagged solely to the outdoors as possible, versus the general fund/free for all accounts
i’m with you Bucky…..i want as much $$$$$$ going to the outdoors as possible.
my thinking is this……..if this passes…….you have a committee, and they will form a committee, that may or may not have a clue whats good for the outdoors.
thats what scares me the most. Chuck…….i’m ok with EP controlling the money….not sure if he hunts, wild game anyway!….but he does fish!!!!
The Amendment may be OK for the outdoors and monies, but a committee that has to be chosen by Race bothers the heck out of me. No more than 2 Ojibwe & 2 Dakota tribe members and no more than 4 people of color, out of 11… that’s 8 of the 11….. super majority. Why ? Can the monies be used to buy out private property owners and turn the land over to the tribes… like has been happening lately ? With Democrats holding the majority throughout, there has to be a scheme in it. Just my take… I trust no politicians.
Can the monies be used to buy out private property owners and turn the land over to the tribes…
The new committee is only for the new community grants program that can spend 1.5% of the funds value. They are to be the “Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund Community Grant Advisory Council” and it’s ultimately up to the commissioner of natural resources.
As to what they can do with land it’s right here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/116P.15#stat.116P.15.2
Reads to me like they cannot just give it away but they can potentially trade following these requirements:
(1) the interest must be at least equal in fair market value, as certified by the commissioner of natural resources, to the interest being replaced; and
(2) the interest must be in a reasonably equivalent location, and have a reasonably equivalent useful conservation purpose compared to the interest being replaced, taking into consideration all effects from fragmentation of the whole habitat.
One part of this bill I don’t understand is why does this bill have to form a new community that receive $25 million a year?
The topic ‘Vote Minnesota Lottery proceeds for the outdoors’ is closed to new replies.
