A Bipartisan Bonding Package
by Senator Jason Rarick

Every year, it seems like bonding legislation is a big part of the end of session negotiations, and this year was no different. In recent years we’ve repeatedly seen hyper-partisan bonding proposals that focus on “pet projects” for metro legislators. I’ve been pretty outspoken about this process and how it’s led to unbalanced bonding bills that don’t really address needs in greater Minnesota.

The reality is that outstate communities face significant infrastructure needs but often lack the tax base to fund large-scale projects on their own. That’s exactly where state bonding should come in—to support essential priorities like clean water, roads, and bridges. These issues affect every corner of Minnesota, and I’ve been disappointed that past bonding bills have too often ignored them.

I was happy to see that this year’s Bonding Bill took those concerns to heart. As a result, the final deal equated to a $700 million bipartisan package. Though it may not be a perfect bill, it was certainly the best we could get, given the split nature of the legislature. Is this the bill Republicans would have written? I’d say no, but it certainly prioritizes the right things, as opposed to 2023’s bonding bill.

The bill avoids partisan projects and allocates $290 million for improvements across the state, including $42 million for local roads and $31 million for bridge replacements. It also allocates over $93 million to address urgent water infrastructure needs with $43.5 million each for both Clean Water and Drinking Water Grants, and $6 million to mitigate drinking water contamination across Minnesota.

The bill also includes funding for critical lead pipe replacement projects, which will protect public health and improve the safety of drinking water in communities across the state. In addition to addressing urgent maintenance needs, the projects funded by the bill are expected to generate thousands of construction jobs and make Minnesota eligible for significant federal matching dollars.

While I’m pleased this bill benefits many outstate towns and communities, the broad nature of its scope meant that many local priorities for our district didn’t make the cut. I want folks to know those bills and issues will remain active throughout 2026, so there’s still a chance we can get them to the finish line if they do not receive funding before then. I remain committed to advocating for these local issues.

Another large area of the bill is asset preservation. This portion goes to things like the University of Minnesota, Minnesota State, DNR, Minnesota Zoo, the Historical Society, and a handful of other groups and agencies. The Governor initially proposed that over 40% of the bill go to these projects, but we successfully negotiated that portion down to 30%. Though that still yields a high dollar amount, it freed up funding for critical projects addressing water, road, and bridge needs across the state. I consider this a big win for greater Minnesota.

Overall, this is a pretty good bill built on bipartisan cooperation. It avoids partisan carve-outs, and is hyper-focused on addressing infrastructure needs across the state. In my opinion, this bonding package is a key step forward in ensuring that Minnesota’s infrastructure remains safe, reliable, and ready for future generations.