Should the state borrow $6 million to build protective dikes in a Red River Valley community that one geologist says should never have been developed in the first place? ¶ Should a music lending library in southeastern Minnesota get help two years after Gov. Tim Pawlenty singled out an earlier request as wasteful spending? ¶ What about installing snow-making equipment for cross-country skiing in Ramsey County?
Even more than most years, supporters of bigger borrowing say a large bonding bill when the Legislature convenes early next year would take advantage of cheap labor and credit, tackle delayed projects and put thousands of Minnesotans back to work.
Legislators won't settle on a final mix for months, but they've already started touring the state to cull the list of potential projects.
The full wish list totals nearly $2.7 billion -- far more than anyone expects to spend. DFLers are aiming closer to $1 billion, with projects targeted to job revival.
That will run headlong into Pawlenty, a Republican governor who appears intent on holding the line closer to $725 million, as he stresses his fiscal conservatism nationally. Other conservatives say the state can't afford any new borrowing because of its looming budget deficit.
The choices legislators make for the 2010 bonding bill will depend on far more than the projects themselves. Geography, political affiliation, horse-trading and a budget deficit can all come into play. One legislator's vital project is another's dubious priority.
The biggest requests come from the state's public colleges and universities, who want $588 million to expand and renovate. There are bids to spend $250 million on natural resources and flood control, and nearly $200 million on transit, roads and bridges.
Consider the flood-control project in Oakport Township near Moorhead, where about 400 houses occupy a low area hit hard by Red River flooding.