Capital investment and infrastructure funding
Minnesota’s 2026 legislative session ended with passage of a long-anticipated $1.2 billion capital investment package that required a supermajority. Lawmakers also considered but did not pass items such as changes to local cost-share formulas for utility relocation during state highway construction, reflecting ongoing infrastructure and local-government finance debates.
How should Minnesota fund and prioritize capital investment and infrastructure?
Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.
How important is this to you?
✓ You told us where you stand
Sources
League of Minnesota Cities — https://www.lmc.org/news-publications/news/all/2026-legislative-session-overview
In the final hours of session, lawmakers passed an omnibus tax bill and a long-anticipated $1.2 billion capital investment package, which received the supermajority vote required for passage.
League of Minnesota Cities — https://www.lmc.org/news-publications/news/all/2026-legislative-session-overview
Several issues were debated but did not pass, including regulation of electric-assisted bicycles and e-motos, a regulatory framework for driverless vehicles, and modifications to the local cost-share formula for utility relocation during state highway construction.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
- Greatly increase state capital bonding for public works, transit, and community facilities
- Support large packages like the $1.2B plan with emphasis on local and equity needs
- Fund essential maintenance and selective new projects with bipartisan supermajority support
- Limit capital spending, shift more costs locally, and prioritize roads over new programs
- Minimize state capital packages and reduce government-led infrastructure investment