Minnesota lawmakers are making progress toward approving a ballot question in 2024 that would let voters decide whether to extend the use of lottery money for environmental projects.
But some major changes proposed by Democrats to the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund — that would have resulted in more money for the account — won’t be part of the constitutional amendment before voters after all.
On Wednesday, House and Senate lawmakers removed a provision that would have dedicated an extra 10% of net lottery proceeds to the environmental trust fund. And they also nixed a potential change in state law that would direct cash from unclaimed lottery prizes to the trust fund. Combined, the money would have added roughly $20 million each year to the account, which received $44.3 million from the lottery in 2022.
“I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to strip out all the money from my bill,” state Rep. Athena Hollins, DFL-St. Paul, told the House Ways and Means Committee with lighthearted sarcasm. “Hopefully this will be the least painful thing you have to do today.”
The trust fund was first authorized along with a state lottery in 1988. The money is doled out by lawmakers, but they get recommendations from a 17-member council. This year, the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources recommended 85 projects with a total $79.8 million price tag.
[image_caption]State Rep. Athena Hollins[/image_caption]
Hollins and Sen. Foung Hawj, DFL-St. Paul, sponsored the proposal for a new constitutional amendment. And they initially wanted more cash for the trust fund.
Under their first plan, the constitution would have instead dedicated 50% of lottery money for the environmental account if the ballot question was approved by voters. And the DFL proposal also would have changed state law to direct unclaimed lottery prizes into the trust fund rather than the general fund.
[image_caption]State Sen. Foung Hawj[/image_caption]
But that plan hit a roadblock. Taking away general fund money would mean less cash to use on other priorities. Hollins said DFL leadership couldn’t agree where that additional money for the trust fund would come from.
“Thank you, Rep. Hollins, for staying within our budget parameters,” said Rep. Liz Olson, a Duluth DFLer who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.
Now, the proposal to extend lottery funding for the trust fund contains the existing limit of 40% of proceeds earmarked for the environmental account.
Hollins and Fawj are still proposing some changes to the trust fund. One is allowing a greater share of the fund to be used each year. Currently 5.5% can be drawn from the account, which is invested by state officials to grow the cash. But the DFL bill would allow state officials to use an additional 1.5% of the trust fund every year to pay for the community grants program. That would leave less to be handled by the State Board of Investment.
Money earmarked for community grants would be approved by the Walz administration on the advice of a new advisory council, rather than legislators, which drew frustration from Republican lawmakers in a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday. The GOP has also objected to a DFL plan to block the use of trust fund money for upgrading wastewater treatment facilities or for paying the principal or interest of any bonds used to finance infrastructure projects.
But DFLers hold majorities in the House and Senate and have advanced the legislation this week, moving it closer to floor votes. Democrats may also still alter the council that makes recommendations on projects.
Good!! Anytime you have a 17 member unelected board giving recommendations to Lawmakers on how to spend money, you got issues. I would love to see the horse trading going on with that board. Unfortunately for Minnesotans “environmental boards” appointed by elites, never include the folks who understand that forestry is a renewable resource that needs to be managed. “Environmental boards” are anti logging, that hurts Minnesotans. “Environmental boards “ are totally against mining precious metals we use daily, that hurts Minnesotans.
The money from gambling will be spent, every penny of it, by lawmakers and enough of it will be wasted without a 17 member board of “greenies”, non elected, pumping pet projects.
No Joe. Environmental and other citizen boards are not the ‘antis’ that you say. They look at the big picture and recommend what appears to be best in the long run.
Your ‘anti’ tag has, and still does, apply to your narrow-minded Republican base which has a long history of being against common-sense solutions because of their dollar-tinted glasses.
Exactly!
Lost in all this was the initial impetus for this in the first place: Following a successful program in MO that used a citizen’s commission to allocate the dollars to environmental projects. Our MN politicians could not abide the thought of all those dollars flowing out with their having no control on the ability to feather their electoral nests and that is what got us to today.
Joe does not trust politicians to make these decisions and does not trust citizens to make these decisions. I guess in his world view that just leaves mining companies to call the shots.
“As Mark Twain said, the definition of a mine is a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it.”
Taking potshots at those who volunteer their time to help our environment continue to provide clean air and water and outdoor recreation for hunters, fishers, boaters, hikers, foragers and photographers as well as young families who want their children to respect the natural world rather than exploit and pollute it. I guess someone has to do it.
They provide advice. If you disagree, don’t vent but offer your own suggestions to your elected representatives. Very easy to do – fill out a form, make a call, attend a public meeting or make an appointment to visit them in person. Highly recommended. They like to hear from their constituents.
How did the forests of North America even survive until Europeans arrived to manage them?
A second on Edward’s suggestion.
I am firmly with reseeding it and making it a quasi-park, even if only till (hopefully) better things come along. Once green space disappears, it seems never to return.
One of the joys when visiting and walking in other cities is finding green space where one can sit on a park bench surrounded by trees/flowers/calm. These seem to be decompression and bonding sites for neighborhoods. Kids play while the parents meet and talk with other parents. And the businesses that open up and face these parks seem to thrive financially from looking over the beauty of the parks.
Perhaps some of the land adjoining the Greenway could be dug down to the Greenway level making a wide spot along the old railroad trench here. An interface between the city and the greenway. Chicago has this along the North River on both sides of Michigan Avenue and it adds to the quality of life there. Cities in Europe like Budapest, Vienna, and Cologne have these city block size parks, many with fountains where people gather and makes it a joy to walk or bike through.
Some posters here seem to defer to the great God of the automobile in opening up Nicollet again, and while I am not against it, I fail to see why the needs of the mighty auto should trump all.
Nope, you guys are wrong. Show me where that board has been pro mining and pro logging and I will change my mind. Evidently you guys have not run businesses, 17 people making decisions on other folks money (taxpayers) is a recipe for disaster…… Every time!!
“Show me where that board has been pro mining and pro logging and I will change my mind.”
That has nothing to do with nothing. Your point is totally irrelevant and meaningless to the topic at hand:
“In 1988, Minnesota voters overwhelmingly passed constitutional amendments to establish a
state lottery and to create the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF), a
permanent trust with principal funding provided by a portion of net lottery proceeds.”
The PEOPLE voted in 1988 for what they wanted and are, generally, getting. There was no “mine baby mine” sentiment anywhere in the 1988 Constitutional Amendment. Sulfide mining is a totally separate and different issue. Are you suggesting that rather than the prospective mine owners being responsible for any environmental damages, the state just cover it through the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund? Nah… That would be corporate welfare and all good conservatives oppose that.