State agencies’ bonding requests top $2 billion

At a time of year when everyone’s making wish lists, Minnesota’s state agencies have a few wishes of their own for the 2010 bonding bill.

Twenty-five state departments and agencies have put together preliminary requests for projects that they’d like to see included in the bill, which legislative leaders have said they hope to pass within the first few weeks of the 2010 legislative session.

But no one has predicted a successful bonding bill of more than $1 billion, and the preliminary bonding requests add up to twice that sum. Minnesota does its major bonding packages in even-numbered years, and 2010 is the second such period in a row in which Pawlenty administration agency requests have topped $2 billion - an increase of nearly 33 percent from the totals in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

One single request on this year’s list, from the Office of Enterprise Technology, came in at a whopping $214.2 million.

“That’s the largest request I’ve ever seen,” said Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, who chairs the House Capital Investment Finance Division and is serving in her 11th term. “Unless the governor says we can have a large bill, that’s just way beyond the bounds. There’s simply not room for that kind of request.”

In fact, just the eight most expensive line items in the agencies’ preliminary bonding requests add up to almost $740.9 million - more than the $725 million that Gov. Tim Pawlenty has suggested as a possible figure for the 2010 bill.

“If the governor is saying we can spend only about $700 million, and $214 million goes for that one item, what will happen to every other infrastructure need?” Hausman asked. “Frankly, for [a request] that big, the governor would have to do the heavy lifting.

“And the governor doesn’t seem to like bonding bills. He doesn’t seem to like to spend money on infrastructure. So if he limits the size of the bill and it all goes to a few projects, then everything else - including higher education and flood mitigation - gets shortchanged.”

Hausman and Pawlenty have clashed before on bonding bills. Earlier this month, after Hausman publicly advocated a $1 billion bonding bill in 2010 that focuses heavily on construction projects in an effort to get unemployed Minnesotans back to work, the governor sounded a note of caution in a press conference: “Bonding money isn’t free,” he said. “It has to be paid back with interest.”

Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung reiterated that sentiment this week. “We are in the process of reviewing bonding requests, and the governor will be making his recommendations in January,” McClung said. “DFL legislators need to remember that borrowing money isn’t free.

“Gov. Pawlenty will present a balanced bonding bill that will both be affordable and will advance a number of key initiatives. Rep. Hausman should rest assured that it will contain more than [a few] projects.”

The $214 million Office of Enterprise Technology request is for “data center consolidation.” Under the proposal, more than 36 executive branch agency data centers - which currently take up 69,000 square feet - would be brought together in one 20,000-square-foot location for “greater efficiency and reduced risk of failure,” the MMB project narrative says.

“We’ve got a growing risk in the state,” said Cathy de Moll, the agency’s communications director, referring to a 2008 independent study showing that Minnesota’s current data centers - which house sensitive information on everything from law enforcement to voting records to public health data - are 40 years out of date and massively inefficient.

The study also predicted that the state’s outmoded system will cause three to five “significant problems” within the next three years, de Moll said.

Because of the state’s ongoing budget crisis, a steering committee has suggested two possible solutions to the data-storage problem: either building a new facility or renting space elsewhere. However, the latter option “would be more expensive than building a new one,” de Moll said.

“The most expensive option of all is not doing anything,” she added. “Just putting Band-Aids on the facilities we have now would be very expensive in the long run.”

Here are the remaining Top Five preliminary bonding requests:

• The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is asking for $110 million in Higher Education Asset Repair and Replacement (HEAPR) money to maintain and preserve the system’s existing assets, including repairing and replacing roofs, plumbing, electrical, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; upgrading and installing fire alarms and sprinklers; replacing windows and repairing elevators; and replacing other items that “have reached the end of their useful life expectancy.”
• The University of Minnesota is seeking $100 million in HEAPR money to “maximize and extend the life of the university’s existing physical plant.” Projects would fall into four categories: health, safety and accessibility; building systems; utility infrastructure; and energy efficiency.
• The Department of Human Services is asking for $96 million for the second phase of the ongoing expansion of the state’s sex-offender facility in Moose Lake. Money for the first phase of construction and the design of the second phase were appropriated during the 2006 legislative session.
• The Department of Transportation wants $75 million for bridge-replacement programs. The money would go toward replacing 960 deficient local bridges during the 2010-11 construction season and maintaining transportation infrastructure; around the state, 87 cities and counties have requested bridge projects. That money would be supplemented with $150 million in federal bridge replacement dollars, state-aid funds and local money, according to the MMB project narrative.

One Response to “State agencies’ bonding requests top $2 billion”

1. Julie Gay Says:
   January 5th, 2010 at 8:15 am

   I write a blog , Krisgay.blogivists.com, aboutOlmsted County government.

   I have asked the local folks for an economic analysis of the supposed jobs that would be created with approval of the Mayo Civic Center bonding request of $36 million.

   Can you give me any insight how I can get that information from your end?

   Supposedly the additional jobs would be 500-800. I don’t think that is ever going to happen but I want to see if it is remotely true.

   Could you let me know?