Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reconnect Rondo Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on Reconnect Rondo funding; bill to prohibit state support laid over
Summary
Representative West introduced HF 4-94 to prohibit state funding for Reconnect Rondo and claw back remaining funds; the committee adopted two amendments and laid the bill over after extensive, often heated, testimony both for and against the project.
Representative West introduced House File 4-94, a bill that would prohibit future state funding for the Reconnect Rondo land-bridge project and claw back remaining departmental funds allocated to it. The committee adopted two amendments (A1 technical; A2 to redirect any remaining funds back to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund) and then laid the bill over for further consideration.
Representative West said the measure is driven by concerns about state fiscal constraints and the size of the Reconnect Rondo price tag. "We're looking at what, over $400,000,000 is what they're saying," Representative West told the committee, arguing lawmakers must prioritize statewide transportation needs amid projected budget deficits.
Proponents of the Rondo project, including Keith Baker, executive director of Reconnect Rondo, and Marvin Anderson of the Rondo Center for Diverse Expressions, told the committee the project is designed to repair longstanding harm done to a predominantly Black neighborhood by the I‑94 routing in the 1950s and to provide economic, social and transportation benefits. Baker presented a project cost figure for the land-bridge portion and a proposed funding split: "This project ... is $250,000,000 ... 80% being federal, 20% being state, which is 63,000,000," he told the committee.
Other testimony in favor came from community leaders, organizers and nonprofit representatives who described the project as an equity and economic-development initiative that would reconnect a divided neighborhood, add green space, and create business and job opportunities. Marvin Anderson said rejecting the project would ignore "the vision, the hard work, and the aspirations of the Rondo community." Sharon Garth, who identified herself as a lifelong Rondo resident, described the project as a long-term plan to restore housing, businesses and culture in the neighborhood.
Opposing testimony included John Phelan of the Center of the American Experiment, who framed the bill as a response to fiscal concerns and urged lawmakers to oppose state spending on what he called a costly localized project. Phelan called the project’s total costs "at least an estimated $450,000,000" and argued the state is facing large budget deficits. He recommended policymakers prioritize other statewide transportation work.
Robert Harper, a consultant who said his team helped calculate disadvantaged business enterprise goals, told the committee about contracting patterns and urged support for Reconnect Rondo’s contracting plans. He said his research found that from 2017–2020 black contractors received "0 out of 742 MnDOT contracts" that totaled over $3 billion, and argued the Rondo project includes plans to use diverse contractors.
Committee members traded sharply worded remarks at times. Representative Cagle criticized the bill’s implications, noting testimony and written statements from community witnesses and objecting to comments made by an outside testifier. Representative West said the bill seeks only to be fiscally responsible and noted the committee previously handled prohibitions for other projects.
What’s next: After amendments were adopted and lengthy testimony, committee members laid House File 4-94 over for further consideration. The bill’s sponsors and opponents signaled they will continue to press their case in follow-up conversations and committee work.
