It’s a hurry up and wait game for those of us watching for the legislative budget issues. There’s not much to see now but decisions are being made in preparation for the budget deadlines next week. So it’s a good time to contact a legislator if you have an issue – such as wanting to see more investment in rural Minnesota.

Today the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran an editorial from Senator Matt Schmit, a vocal advocate for rural broadband…

Instead of building upon last year’s momentum, we’re poised to take a significant step back.

The Senator connects with one frustration many of us have in the field – people care about the topic but that concern is not being heard…

Just a year and a half ago, hundreds of Minnesotans turned out for our broadband listening tour. The takeaways were clear: We have a diverse state with various providers, markets and geography; a one-size-fits-all approach won’t connect the state, so we need to empower local problem-solvers, and, finally, folks are tired of talking about the issue — we need action.

Unfortunately, though, we’re still doing too much talking — and the lip service is getting tiresome.

The last Legislature put a down payment on what was intended to be a sustained, significant effort to expand broadband access. Last year’s $20 million appropriation will connect more than 6,000 homes, hundreds of businesses and scores of community anchor institutions — such as libraries, schools and hospitals — with high-speed Internet built for the long haul. These communities will be competitively positioned against the world’s best connected for economic opportunity and quality of life.

In round one of Minnesota’s “Border-to-Border Broadband” matching grant fund, 17 of 40 applications were awarded funding, leveraging at least $45 million in infrastructure investment. However, many potential applicants held out for round two, where more funding was expected to be at stake. In fact, Minnesota led all states in response to a 2014 federal inquiry of need, touting more than $600 million in shovel-ready projects throughout the state.

But this Legislature isn’t taking the challenge seriously. Instead, the Senate is proposing a 15 percent cut to the matching-grant program; the House proposes a 60 percent cut. Minnesota didn’t make a big splash by allocating significant resources to its fund; after all, New York devoted $500 million to its upstate effort. Instead, we settled for building the fund slowly — but now even that approach appears in doubt.

Minnesota has a projected $2 billion budget surplus — and we’re struggling to pledge 1 percent of our one-time excess to an urgent one-time need. Instead of building upon last year’s momentum, this Legislature risks taking a significant step back.