Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative leaders say bonding bill negotiations underway; Senate signals $1.35 billion first-year target
Summary
Minnesota legislative leaders described early talks about a bonding bill with competing forecasts: a $700 million/$1 billion two-year split, and a $1.35 billion first-year option. Leaders said they intend to move a bonding bill this session and avoid tying unrelated politics to it.
House and Senate leaders told reporters after a leadership meeting that they had begun mapping options for a 2025 bonding bill, including a forecast with roughly $700 million in the first year and $1 billion in the second year and an alternate plan that would front-load roughly $1.35 billion in the first year and zero in the second.
The discussion “about what that could look like” was the primary substance of the meeting, a House leader (unnamed) said, adding that the group talked through different compromise proposals. Senate leaders also signaled movement: a Senate DFL target of $1.35 billion in the first year has been announced, the same Senate leader (unnamed) noted in the briefing.
Why it matters: bonding bills fund capital projects such as drinking-water, transportation and other infrastructure that cities, counties and school districts rely on. Leaders said they want a standalone bonding bill and cautioned against attaching unrelated political priorities.
“There does appear to be a real desire to move on a bonding bill this year,” a Senate leader (unnamed) said, adding confidence in the chairs who will assemble the proposal. The House leader (unnamed) said it is longstanding practice to negotiate a bonding bill “within itself and not tie other politics to it,” and said they would not support tying other politics to the package.
Leaders said they expect more detailed discussions after the legislative break and that they will meet frequently to align on “big picture targets” once budget and authorizing bills are available to compare side‑by‑side. No formal offer or bill text was provided at the briefing.
The leaders discussed balancing options rather than final figures. One option described at the meeting was a two‑year split with about $700 million in year one and $1 billion in year two; another was front‑loading about $1.35 billion in year one and zero in year two. Leaders described several compromise possibilities but did not identify a settled approach.
No formal motions, votes or bill numbers were provided during the briefing; leaders said committees will continue building budget and bonding proposals and that more concrete details will appear when bills are filed and compared in conference.
Officials emphasized that bonding negotiations should stay focused on capital needs and warned that attaching unrelated policy could imperil passage.
The leaders did not provide a schedule for filing a bonding bill or for final votes.
