![]() |
May 11, 2006
Looking for progressLegislative leaders said a while ago they want to end the session by May 17. At least the negotiators on the bonding bill look like they want to hold to that deadline. Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, and Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, chair the conference committee working on the bonding bill. They've been waiting for legislative leaders to give them an overall dollar amount or target to work with, but so far the leaders have been doing their best to avoid serious meetings. So yesterday Langseth said he would accept the number in Dorman's bill. Dorman told MPR that's a good sign for finishing the bill: "We finally, after how many ever days we've been here milling around, apparently have an agreement on the overall size of the bill, so now we can actually get to work and put a bill out. So I think that that is very, very good news," he said. Is there any doubt that lawmakers will leave town in a hurry once the final version of the bonding bill emerges from the conference committee? Of course one of big issues holding up progress is stadiums. MPR's Tom Scheck had a piece last night looking at whether the Senate wants to kill the stadiums or whether they will survive. His reading? There's still lots of optimism among stadium supporters: Several stadium supporters, including [Sen. David] Tomassoni, chief author Steve Kelley and Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson say they're willing to consider the House offer if there's little support for their plan. Johnson says he and other stadium supporters in the Senate will get a Twins ballpark and a Gopher stadium done this year. One theory heard yesterday: the Senate passed the half cent sales tax transit/stadium bill because it was the only way supporters could get any stadium bill into conference committee. Under this scenario the conference committee will give into the House and accept the Hennepin County Twins plan after a few days of putting up a fight for the metro wide sales tax. But will they hold out for a Hennepin County referendum in exchange? Well, we're closer to having a state fruit. The Senate passed a bill that would grant that designation to the Honeycrisp apple. A group of kids from Andersen Elementary in Bayport has been pushing the idea. There must be some way to tie that to the stadium debate, but I can't think of it. Maybe this is it. The Honeycrisp was developed at the University of Minnesota. Why not add some classrooms to the U's stadium proposal? Maybe they could do stem cell research there. Wasn't the research for the Manhattan Project done at a stadium at the University of Chicago? Sounds like a win-win to me. Posted by Mike Mulcahy at 6:50 AMHere's another theory from one of my regular correspondents: Any sense that the Senate Dems passed the half-cent stadium tax to give more heft to their three-eighths sales tax increase for the environment, arts, etc? They could offer to drop the stadium tax if the House lets the enviro tax go through to the ballot. Just a thought. |