Marked Trunk Highway 13 and associated local road improvements funding provided, bonds issued, and money appropriated.
HF4476 is a capital investment bill that would fund major roadway improvements in Savage and Burnsville centered on marked Trunk Highway 13. It appropriates $18.4 million from the state bond proceeds fund for local road and intersection work at Quentin Avenue, Lynn Avenue, Chowen Avenue, and Washburn Avenue, including property and easement acquisition, final design, construction, and any related utility relocation or infrastructure work needed to complete the project.
The bill also appropriates $50.1 million from the trunk highway fund’s bond proceeds account for broader improvements to Trunk Highway 13 through Savage and Burnsville. This second appropriation would support acquisition, design, and construction of highway improvements, with the commissioner of management and budget authorized to issue state bonds to finance both appropriations. The bill takes effect the day after final enactment.
If enacted, HF4476 would increase state bonded indebtedness and direct transportation capital funding to specific corridor improvements in Scott and Dakota County. It would authorize the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the cities of Savage and Burnsville to carry out land acquisition, engineering, and construction for both highway and adjacent local road infrastructure, and it would use two different financing mechanisms: general state bonds for the local-road portion and trunk highway fund bonds for the highway portion. The bill would not create a new regulatory program, but it would materially affect transportation planning, local access roads, and utility coordination along Trunk Highway 13.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests a generally supportive, infrastructure-focused measure rather than a controversial policy bill. The caption and structure indicate a straightforward capital investment proposal aimed at improving traffic flow, safety, and roadway connectivity in a growing suburban corridor. No recorded opposition, amendments, or divided votes are available in the provided materials.
The main potential points of contention are fiscal and project-specific rather than ideological: the bill authorizes a relatively large amount of bonding, which may raise concerns about state debt levels and competing capital priorities. Another possible issue is the split financing structure, with one appropriation from the bond proceeds fund and another from the trunk highway fund, which could prompt questions about whether the project should be funded as a local road improvement, a state highway improvement, or both. No specific objections from legislators, local governments, or the public are included in the provided record.