Legacy Amendment issues have recently been in the news ("Legacy funds and fat paychecks," editorial, May 13). As chair of the Legacy Funding Division in the Minnesota House of Representatives, I would like to offer my perspective.
Minnesota's constitutional amendment to establish this fund was passed by 1.6 million voters in 2008. They approved a measure to dedicate three-eighths of 1 percent of new sales tax dollars to four funds -- habitat, 33 percent; water, 33 percent; arts, history and culture, 19.75 percent, and parks and trails, 14.25 percent. This year the fund available for the four categories totals $271.8 million. It may top $550 million for the biennium.
This is the third year of funding. Those of us who have been involved all three years recognize that this is a work in progress. After last year, areas we needed to improve became evident.
First, some suffer denial that the amendment passed in the first place. It became incumbent upon me to assure them that, since it really did pass, we must make it work in the most efficient and transparent way possible. With that in mind, I have strived to place two important concepts into our House bill. One expands the reporting, accountability and transparency of the process. We will improve the Legacy website. Citizens and legislators should find it much easier to track the money, projects, possible conflicts of interest and results.
The other concept limits earmarks and broadens the scope of competitive grants.
Of the approximately $51 million in the arts, history and culture portion, $31 million already were disbursed through competitive grants. I expanded the list to include an additional $11 million in funding. One example is a new Public Broadcasting Grants Program. Minnesota Public Radio is eligible for money in this category, as are Twin Cities Public Television, and AMPERS (a collection of community radio stations). The Department of Administration will dispense these grants. I believe that this is a better technique than line-iteming each year.
I offered an amendment last year to discourage feelings of entitlement, instructing all recipients that their funding level was not guaranteed.
Nevertheless, some who have received Legacy money appear to believe they are entitled to receive the same amount, or even more, for the next 23 years. Keep in mind that this is extra money -- gravy, if you will. Yet when my committee reduced one recipient's Legacy funding from $2.6 million last year to "only" $2 million this year, the change was portrayed as an "unprecedented" cut to its budget.
