Pork flies: Bill makes state pay for same land twice

At the Minnesota Capitol, pigs — or at least pork — do fly. Some pork, like the proposed state subsidy for a new parking ramp at the Mall of America, flaps its wings loudly above bipartisan cheers. Other pork flies by more quietly, below the radar – like a bill legislators from both parties sent to the governor yesterday that would make the state pay for the same Minneapolis parkland twice.

This is a story of that other, quieter white meat – more thinly sliced than the fat slabs the mall gets, to be sure, but just as tasty. It starts with the new I-35W bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, which will be wider than the one that fell down last year. Federal rules say the state must own all the land under the new bridge, so the Minnesota Department of Transportation has been buying up parcels of land, 13 in all, that will lie in the new bridge’s bigger shadow. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board owned one of those parcels, about two acres in size, on the west bank of the river and to the downstream side of the bridge. The State of Minnesota first paid for the park board to acquire that land in the 1980s as part of the state’s funding for the extension of West River Parkway that carries the country’s Great River Road through the heart of Minneapolis and under I-35W.

But now, to comply with federal rules that apply to the new bridge, the state needs the land back from the park board. According to Minnesota law, whenever land purchased using state-issued bonds changes hands and changes use, the cash proceeds from the land transfer go back to the state. In this case, a state agency (MnDOT) was the buyer (through condemnation because of land title complications), so the $744,000 MnDOT paid this year for the parcel and for a road easement on an adjacent parcel must be returned to the state’s general fund.

That’s what state law says — unless the state Legislature grants a special exception. And the House of Representative passed just such an exception unanimously on Monday, after the Senate approved it two weeks ago by a vote of 52-10.

Got that? The state first bought the land for the park board and now will re-gift the value of the land to the park board and will restore the park board’s use of the land for a parkway. The bill now awaits Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s signature; despite his fondness for vetoing funds with urban destinations, the unanimous vote in the House (along with assurances that the money will go to buy other riverfront land) will likely keep his veto pen in check. Come December, freeway traffic will travel across an I-35W bridge, as before; bikes, cars and pedestrians will travel beneath the new bridge along West River Parkway, as before; but the state will have spent $744,000 on land it already paid for, once before.

For views of some of those involved, read below the jump.

Continued: Click “Read more”Here is what some of those involved have to say:

State Sen. David Hann (in an e-mail): “There was no compelling argument made to allow the exception other than the Park Board wanted to keep the money to use in case they wanted to purchase another portion of land in the future.  A number of us (10 to be exact) came to the conclusion that the current practice ought to be followed and if the Minneapolis Park Board feels the need to acquire additional land in the future, and wants the state to pay for it, they are welcome to make their case through the normal bonding process.”

State Sen. Scott Dibble (in an interview, responding to the argument that the Minneapolis park board should compete with other proposals if it wants $744,000 in state funding): “That’s a valid point of view. My counter argument is that this already competed and prevailed [when the Legislature originally funded Minneapolis park board purchase of the land]. Now through no fault of their own, the land is being taken away.”

State Sen. Claire Robling (in an e-mail): “It has always been state law that funds received from the sale of land purchased using state bonding money must be returned to the state. I do not like making exceptions. In addition, this land will still be held by a public entity with public access available through the trail. The city’s existing use is not completely lost, so I did not believe the city should be given all the money to purchase another parcel along the river.”

Brian Rice, attorney for the Minneapolis park board (in testimony to the state Senate State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee): “It’s a two-acre piece of land. You’re not going to be putting any recreational things underneath that bridge. … Sen. Dibble’s bill says we’ve got to use [the funds] to replace the land that’s lost. … MnDOT will own and maintain the land itself, which is 95 percent of the land, and that will be their property. They will maintain it. More likely than not, they’ll want to restrict the use to it. They may fence it off to protect it because those are a critical piece of the state’s infrastructure. So it will go from being park board land to MnDOT’s land. … I don’t think just say, okay, anything goes underneath their properties.”

Mike Stensberg, assistant director of land management, MNDOT (in an interview, responding to the suggestion that MNDOT might fence off previously open areas): “It isn’t going to happen that way. The problem is the right-of-way is a certain width because of additional lanes on either side of the bridge. The park was under the bridge before. It isn’t going to be any different. It’s just that it’s wider.”

State Sen. Sandy Pappas (speaking at the Senate State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee): “I have a similar issue with a library in Ramsey County. … I think it was a handicapped-accessible water fountain or something was paid for with state bond funds. And then 20 years later you decide you need to build a new library — really the same purpose why you did it originally, but you end up having to [give] back to the state a sum of money. … It seems kind of silly to have to pay back, in this case it’s like $13,000 or something, instead of just turning that around and using it for the same purpose. So I think this is similar situation to my legislation, and I think this is good public policy.”

State Sen. Chris Gerlach (in an interview): “This is horrendously bad public policy. It sets a precedent for local governments to get back money [from sale of state-bonded land] instead of returning it to be reallocated. … This is the wrong answer.”

Peter Sausen, former assistant commissioner of finance, who retired in 2007 after 25 years in the department (in an interview, responding to Sen. Gerlach’s suggestion that this bill sets a poor precedent): “I would agree with him. … But the Finance Department never tried to get money from local government. The state should get back the [funds when bonded land is sold] in general. … We would tell local governments, if you want to keep the money, go ahead and try [to get a law passed to allow it].”