March 23, 2026 · Transportation · 16,934 words · 25 speakers · 590 segments
All right. Welcome, everyone. We're going to call the Minnesota Senate Transportation Committee hearing to order for Monday, March 23rd, 2026. The time is 3:21. We're in room 1100 of the Minnesota Senate building. Without going through the formalities, is Senator Carlson. All right, a quorum is present. And members. We have five bills on the committee hearing roster today. Two of them will pass on to Judiciary and one will pass on to Finance, and two will lay over for possible inclusion. I have the first two bills up,
so I will ask Senator Johnson Stewart to take the gavel.
Is that the first two? So, members, we're on 3946. Senator Dibble to your bill when you're ready.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present Senate file 3946,
inviting Ms.
Kunderis up to join me. So this is a fairly straightforward but very important public safety clarification bill. Under current law, Madam Chair, it is a gross misdemeanor to assault a transit operator, what we call an operator. By that, we're referring to the driver of a bus or a train. So what this bill does is update that language to reflect the reality of today's transit system by extending those same protections to all transit workers. So it changes the term transit operator to transit worker, so that we would also include employees, contractors and volunteers working in public transportation and across an array of transit modes, whether that's bus, light rail, commuter trail, et cetera, commuter rail, et cetera. So in other words, the bill is trying to communicate that if you're doing transit work and serving the public, you deserve the same protections under the law. This is a reflection of the fact that our transit system has evolved and it's no longer just operators that are interacting with the public. We have, of course, a product of this committee's work, the Transit Rider Investment Program, trip, and we have the TRIP agents, the staff who carry out those sorts of services and protections, community service officers, maintenance and facilities workers, and contracted service providers. They're all publicly facing workers, frontline workers, and they're exposed to risks. Yet under the current statute, as I mentioned, only the driver or the operator is explicitly protected. So, Madam Chair and members, it's an important step to take because folks really are working very, very hard to keep our transportation system safe. I ride the LRT and bus rapid transit a lot. And we have folks who are increasing the level of expectation and approaching folks and asking them questions, sometimes that are uncomfortable and sometimes that results in a reaction and response from some individuals in the public so we want to be sure that people feel like they're enjoying the same safety and protection of the laws that we have. So that's the bill. And Madam chair, we have. Ms. Kunderas, who is Metro Transit manager, or what is your title?
Yeah, General manager.
General manager for Metro Transit, who can talk a little bit about. This is actually an agency bill and agency initiative. Why, this is a good idea.
Great. Ms. Kunderas, do you want to do your testimony? Members, any questions before we hear. Okay. Ms. Ganderas, would you introduce yourself? And then we'd love you to hear your testimony.
All right.
Thank you. Chair, Committee members, my name is Leslie Kanderas. I'm the general manager at Metro Transit, a division of the Metropolitan Council. And thank you, Chair Dibble, for introducing this Metropolitan Council initiative. Senate File 3946, a bill to clarify criminal penalty provisions for assaulting transit workers. And thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about why the council is pursuing this change. As you've heard, the proposal would apply the enhanced penalties currently in Minnesota statutes for. For assaulting transit operators to other transit workers. Today, the operators, the people who are driving the buses and trains, are covered, as are the Metro Transit police officers under a different subdivision that pertains to peace officers. But we have many other transit workers who are absolutely essential to making transit happen, but aren't covered under current law as we add more frontline workers as we continue to grow and improve our system. And this includes our transit Rider Investment Program or trip agents, the community service officers who work in our police department, public facility workers, and many other positions that are absolutely crucial to providing transit. We believe there should be parity in the penalty for assault across these groups. And this is important because without transit workers, there is no transit. The safety and well being of our employees, along with our riders absolutely must come first. At Metro Transit, our mission is to connect people, strengthen communities and improve lives by delivering high quality public transportation. We delivered about 50 million rides in 2025 across over 60 communities in the Metro area. But all of that is only possible because of our transit employees. So it really is important from our perspective to move forward with this change in law to convey that we value and care about all employees who are working tirelessly, often in challenging conditions, to deliver that safe, clean and reliable transit experience that people throughout our region rely on. So I'll stop there, but I will just note that there are several people from Metro Transit who are here and can assist in answering questions. That includes our deputy general manager and chief Operating officer Brian Funk, our chief of Police, Joe Dodseth, and Andrew Brody, who serves as our chief Safety officer. I also want to acknowledge that we have a member of ATU Local 1005, Pat Davern, here as well. So thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to testify today.
Thank you, Ms. Kunderas. I know I have at least one question. Senator Jasinski.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Dibble. And thank you, Ms. Kandaris. So a few years back when this came up about having the trip agents and things like that, I had some concern over the security, not having Metro Transit Police or an officer. What are the statistics since we've changed that? I mean, how many people are getting assaulted as these TRIP agents versus well, you have nothing to compare it to. But as far as what's the frequency we're seeing is obviously if you're bringing a bill forward, there's something happening out there. So again, my concern was, you know, changing over and not having a gun holding Metro Transit Police on there was some concern to me. So can you tell me some of the statistics what we're seeing as incidences
like this happen, Ms. Canderis?
Sure, madam Chair. Senator Jasinski yes. So, well, and first of all, I'll say that we are tracking data, we report data actually to the federal government. And this change is important for us really to see that parity in penalty for people who are assaulted. So it's not a particular data point we're looking at. However, that being said, as we have added TRIP agents to our system, unfortunately we are seeing that they are victims of assault in some cases. So for example, in 2024, we had 16 transit workers who are not operators who are assaulted. And in 2025, that grew to 72. So that is an increase. And the majority of that is trip in that case. And so this goes beyond just covering trip, but it does recognize that there are frontline employees who unfortunately have these experiences. And we want to make sure the penalty for assault is the same across the board.
Senator Jasinski thank you, Madam Chair.
And again, I'm all for to make these safer so that we can actually they have to be safe for people to ride them. But again, my concern going back to a few years ago was this, this is what's going to happen because I think the best people have there are the transit police. I understand the way it was put forward and what we're trying to do out there. But again, my concern is these we're having people that have really no defense are Being put in positions that is difficult. So, you know, from 16 to 72 is a huge jump. And so that's concerning to me with what's going on here, using the trip advisors versus Metro Police being there as well. So that's just my concern for those people. Again, I'm 100% on board for making it safer because if it's not safe, people won't ride it. Ridership's going to go down, so we have to do something to improve it. My concern at the time was just putting more Metro Police officers on there instead of switching over to a trip agent. So thank you for the input. But again, that's concerning to see it go from 16 to 72 in one year.
So thank you, members.
Any other questions? Senator Lang?
I got an easy one, Madam Chair. How many trip agents are there?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator. So currently Metro Transit employs 82 trip agents. We contract an additional 54. So 136. 136 currently.
136 total.
If I did my math right, 82 that we employed.
Judd, behind you. Yes, thank you. All right, Senator Lang.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a pretty high probability of being assaulted. I didn't do the math in my head, but that's.
That's a lot. Any follow up?
Oh, Madam Chair. Senator. And just to clarify, the figures I gave earlier were not trips specific. It was the people who do are not operators. But a majority of those are trip but. And we can provide further data clarification as needed too, but.
Yes, thank you, Senator Lang. Are you good? Okay.
Senator Jasinski, again, just to Clarify, that's almost 1 in 2 trip officers are going to getting assaulted. You basically said about 150 employees. 72. That's concerning. 1 in 2 people are open to getting assaulted on the job.
That's a concern, Ms. Canderis. Is that accurate?
Chair? Senator, if we may, I would like to come back with the data. You're doing the math correctly. Based on what I am sharing, I think the numbers of trip agents I just provided are current. Headcount. Our data lags a little bit, but we can provide more specifics. But absolutely concur with the Senator's point.
Thank you. And I concur. That's a lot.
Yeah.
So members. Senator Farnsworth.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I don't know, Senator Dibble, if you can even answer this question, but it just has me thinking. So we're increasing this to a gross misdemeanor from a misdemeanor. And I'm not on Judiciary, and God willing, I'll never be on Judiciary,
so
I don't know that I'll be able to get this answer. But like, it seems to me, so, so one of the things is transferring bodily fluids onto a transit worker. Like, if somebody was, did that to a clerk at the Mall of America, why wouldn't we want to make that a gross misdemeanor? I mean, is this. I guess I don't understand. Why not just make all of these assaults for everybody in the state gross misdemeanors rather than this one group?
Senator Farnsworth, I will let Senator Dibble answer that, but I have some thoughts. Senator Dibble.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That would be a great discussion for Judiciary. That's a kind of a conversation that I don't have a lot of facility in with. That's, that's why we have Judiciary Committee. But, and you know, you know, it's that, it's that old adage, you know, we can't live our entire lives in the context of a single bill. You know, I think the bill identified a specific cohort of folks who, you know, it's similar to, you know, why do we have enhanced penalties for assault on a police officer, different kinds of folks who are, who are serving the public in the public's interest. And, you know, we have kind of a, that's kind of a special role and there's a special amount of public exposure. It's a publicly facing job and it's serving a larger good. And so I think there was some public policy rationale when we established the initial law for drivers of buses and trains, et cetera. And then as we looked at, as we growing the types and the nature of that kind of personnel that support
transit, it just made sense to create
that equality of treatment in terms of that issue. So that's an excellent question. I don't have a response that would necessarily satisfy you, but come on over to Judiciary. That's where we're going and we're going to have that conversation.
Senator Farnsworth, do you have a follow up?
No. Thank you. To the Judiciary offer.
All right, Senator Hemings and Yeager,
thank you. Could I first get a roll call, please?
Certainly. A roll call has been requested.
And then I just want to say thank you for this bill. I think it's really cool how, you know, we started out with transit and we just focused on like, the drivers because they probably were the primary workers at the time. But now as we kind of look to how the different community ways we can look at enforcing and supporting our transit riders. You know, you mentioned the trip agents, the CSOs, facility workers, they're all a part of this like worker ecosystem. So I just appreciate looking out for all workers that are involved and including them in this as well.
Thank you, Senator Jasinski.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one of the discussions made me think of this. So again, going back a few years, we talked about this and I know one of the issues where then we were having a lot of criminal penalties for people without tickets. So we shifted over to more civil penalties to make sure the thought was you're going to get more money in fines. So do you have any of the statistics on what we were collecting in fines before and not collecting criminally and now what the civil penalties are and what the collection is in those, in, in, you know, ensuring the differences between what we're doing, because that was, that was the discussion two years ago is that we were, you know, we couldn't prosecute these criminal penalties. They're all being dismissed. So we shifted over to this process which put these people in harm's way and now we're doing civil penalties. So how many more penalty fees are we collecting than we used to?
Ms. Canderis or Ms. Senator Dibble?
I just want to just respond to the part, part of the premise of the question.
Then I'll toss it to Ms. Kunderas. The idea wasn't simply to collect more
money, was to actually issue more fines or more citations because there were two
limitations, two constraints that we were trying to address in shifting this system, both who was issuing the citations and the nature of the citations. One was that,
you know, they're just, you know, cops are responding to all kinds of things, not just failure to pay fares, fair evasion, and freeing up cops to respond to things that are
slightly more serious in nature.
Although I don't want to give short
shrift to failure to pay fare because
that creates the social disorder climate on trains and buses and that sort of thing.
Very, very important to get more enforcement. So getting more people able to write those sorts of citations shy of being
a sworn law enforcement officer and then
ideally seeing some of the follow. I mean there's, there's different ways to resolve those citations. You can do it through, you know, you know, community service or you know, there's a, there's a but, but to get, to get, to make sure that
there's more follow through in terms of the consequence because they are being dismissed because the citation was out of proportion
to the nature of the offense.
So the valid measure isn't necessarily how
much money, but how many citations are being issued. The level of enforcement, I can tell
you, I ride the train, I ride the bus.
The social order, it's not perfect.
It's not completely perfect in all ways,
in all places, it's a lot better, A lot better.
The smoking, all the stuff that happens was happening is happening to a far less degree. I actually rarely sit on a train
where someone is smoking anymore. And, you know, just the kind of general mayhem and disruptive behavior, I don't see very much. And I see the agents getting on.
I think my last three or four
rides, I've been asked every time to
prove that I paid my fare, which I have, by the way, I got my little phone thing that blinks.
So,
Chair, Senator Jasinski, I unfortunately don't have data off the top of my head on that, but much as Chair Dibble is sharing, we've seen a very significant increase in fair enforcement by creating the TRIP program and deploying TRIP agents on our system. We, as part of that law that created trip, we also have a requirement to report to the legislature. And I know there's data in there, so we can certainly pull that together. But in general, people are definitely experiencing a lot more fair enforcement in terms of actual collection on those administrative citations. I'd have to follow up with you on that. And I'll admit it's something that we continue to figure out how to increase that part, too. But fundamentally, our TRIP agents are there enforcing fares, helping connect people to how to pay for fare, and really put that focus back on fare compliance.
Senator Jasinski, thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Senator Dilbert, for the discussion. And I know Mr. Shetton is behind you nodding his head that things are much better there. So that's great to hear, but I would like to get that report to follow up on where we're at on the penalties. So thank you.
Thank you, members, any other questions? Is there anyone else who'd like to testify for this bill? Standing up. Come on forward and sir, have a seat. Introduce yourself, please, before you begin your testimony.
Thank you very much. My name is Pat davran. I represent atu1005. I'll just very briefly kind of give you an update as to where ATU is looking at right now. And I think. Senator. I'm sorry, Senator, thank you. One thing we're looking at in ATU 1005 is looking. And you know that you specifically mentioned TRIP agents. What we at hu are also looking at doing is getting the option of getting them access to Kevlar vests as a safety measure. So we're looking at that right now. Perhaps maybe getting them in on the same program that the police are involved in, where they have access to probably be able to purchase them or get in some sort of reimbursement program. I've talked with several of those TRIP agents, and they have a concern about, obviously, physical assault and that sort of thing. And we feel that the vest may help resolve some of those issues.
Thank you, Senator Jasinski.
So just clarifying, obviously, Kevlar is more for being shot. So has there been any shootings? Kevlar, to me, sounds like something that's held off for someone being shot. So when you're asking for Kevlar vests for everybody, has there been any instance of a TRIP agent being shot at?
No, but more for more in the line of stabbing weapons.
Okay.
Those type of dagger, knife, whatever that may be. But that's what we're.
Thank you.
And did you introduce yourself as you said?
Yeah, I'm sorry. Pat Davern, ATU 1005.
All right.
Thank you.
I drive the bus.
Yes, I can tell. Thank you so much. Is there any other testifier who'd like to come forward? All right, before we move on, I want to announce that Senator Carlson is participating. Oh. In accordance with the rules of the Senate, the following members will be participating remotely in today's hearing. Senator Carlson from Eagan, Senator McEwen from Duluth. And so, Senator Hemingson Yeager moves that this bill be passed out of transportation and referred to Judiciary. A roll call has been requested.
I can make that motion.
Oh, you can? Oh, I'm sorry.
I make that motion.
Okay. Senator Dibble makes the motion. Well, I didn't know if you could or not. Remember, I'm still new.
All right.
I won't make that mistake again. Senator Dibble moves that this bill be passed out of this committee into Judiciary. Alex, will you take the roll, please?
Chair Dibble. Yes.
Vice Chair Johnson. Stewart.
Yes.
Senator Jasinski.
Aye.
Senator Carlson.
Thanks.
Yes.
Senator Coleman.
Aye.
Senator Farnsworth?
Yes.
Senator Hur.
Yes.
Senator Hemingson? Yeager.
Yes.
Senator lang.
Aye.
Senator McEwen?
Yes.
Senator Nelson? Senator Nelson.
Thank you. With ten ayes. One absent the motion, the motion is adopted. Can I see her here? Oh, here she is. Do we move to reconsider or do we. Since it passed already,
I'll ask council
what is a proper.
Should we revote?
All right. Senator Nelson, how do you vote?
I vote yes.
Okay. I have been advised I could take her vote.
All right, very good.
So with 11 ayes and one absent. Oh, that's right. Duh. I'm not very good at math. Wink, wink. Okay. With 11, I'm never going to be asked to chair again. With 11 ayes and 0 absent, the motion is adopted and the bill will be referred to Judiciary. Yeah, we don't do math so well. All right, thank you, everybody. I know. Senator Dibble. Stay where you are.
All right. Sorry. Are we on to Senate file 4377?
We are Senate file 4377. Senator Dibble to your bill.
All right, thank you.
Madam Chair and members.
Was Senate file 4377. Seven does would be to authorize transit agencies to use transit what are called transit obstruction camera systems mounted on transit vehicles to identify violations where vehicles are blocking bus stops, obstructing bus only lanes, or interfering with bike lanes during transit operating hours. These systems automatically detect and record potential violations. They capture limited video or images, the vehicle and the license plate, and then allow a trained parking enforcement agent to review and verify before any citation is issued. It's not automated enforcement without human oversight because every citation is reviewed by a person. The bill is very carefully structured to create an initial warning period, 60 days before citations begin, similar to what we saw with the speed enforcement pilot that began last year. Citations are issued by mail after review. Violations are petty misdemeanors only. They don't have an impact on the driver's license status. There are exceptions for emergency situations, other legal instances for a stop, medical emergencies, et cetera. Also controls for not being able to be cited twice for the same incident under different laws. And there are strong privacy protections making sure that data is private, not public. There's no facial recognition biometric technology used. Data can only be used for this purpose, not other law enforcement purposes. Most data must be deleted very quickly. There are strict limits on sharing and retention, and there are required audits of the private vendor as well. There are limitations on the vendor itself. There are no contracts that would be based on the number of tickets issued. There are data practice audits that are required and full compliance with Minnesota data laws. The reason for the bill, Madam Chair, is that blocking transit is not just an inconvenience. It creates real impacts in the form of slower and less reliable transit service safety risks for riders that are boarding in traffic, reduced accessibility for people with disabilities, and conflicts with cyclists and other users of the road. It's a resource issue. Law enforcement certainly can't be everywhere at once. So it's low cost, it's high impact and it supports compliance. It's been successful in other cities that have implemented this method in technology with great reductions in violations and collisions, et cetera. It's very much a preventative. You know, people change their behavior very quickly and if they do violate, they don't reviolate. So Madam Chair, I can walk us through the bill if that is your pleasure. It's a longish bill.
I will repeat a lot of what
I said, but I can go really fast if you like.
That would be great. Senator, please go walk through the bill.
Very good.
So Section one deals with data practices, adds a new subdivision so that data collected by transit obstruction cameras is governed by the specific provisions of this bill. Section 2 clarifies that this camera system is not what we call an alpr, an automated license plate reader to prevent confusion. Separately separate the regulatory treatment for this technology. Section 3 are limitations on the camera system says that it cannot be used under the ALPR authority. Section 4 creates a definition for the transit obstruction camera system to include image capture, storage, retrieval and transmission capabilities. Section 5 allows local authorities to regulate parking and stopping violations using the transit obstruction camera system within their local powers over traffic and parking regulations. Section 6 is starts the new law. Section 169.355 starts with definitions of public transportation, who the transit operator is, such as the Met Council or other kinds of transit providers. Transit Vehicle Subdivision 2 confers authority and implementation elements authorizing the installation requiring coordination with local governments, notification to MNDOT and DPS and compliance with system standards. Subdivision 3 allows systems to detect and record potential violations, automatically requires the state to establish technical standards including camera is forward facing and the data collection requirements. Subdivision four has to do with public information and prior notice, making sure that there's information on websites, the identification of the routes that are going to use the cameras, instruction on how to contest a citation and mandates a public education campaign. Subdivision 5 has to do with designation of parking information agents. It does clarify that non peace officers may issue the citations within defined duties, but they receive no broader law enforcement powers. Subdivision 6 establishes a petty misdemeanor for blocking bus stops, bus lanes and bike lanes, but applies only when the violation is captured by a camera system. Subdivision 7 has to do with provides protections in those instances when there's an emergency condition there's a legal stop that is permitted a medical emergency prevents a double citation for the same conduct bear with me and clarifies that there is no driver's license Consequence for the medical circumstance. It provides that there's documentation attesting to that fact. Subdivision 8 requires that initial warning period I mentioned of 60 days before citations can be issued. Requires a human review before there's a citation and then allows for the citation to be issued by mail. And then there's some timelines that go with that. Subdivision 9 has to do with the uniform citation standardized statewide citation format. Subdivision 10 allows for those contracts with private vendors for equipment services and operations, but prohibits payment based on the number of citations or violations and requires regular data practices and audits upholding those data practices. Subdivision 11 are the general data practices provisions. Data is private or non public. It's limited to this purpose. Only restricts sharing of the data. So that's only used with transit and local government and prohibits use in unrelated legal proceedings. Data that can be collected is limited
to on subdivision 12 to license plate
images, the vehicle context necessary to identify a violation. Non identifiable system data prohibits facial recognition or biometric identification. Requires no identification of individuals and data is retained only when a violation is detected. Requires subdivision 13 requires deletion within 30 days unless it's tied to a violation and only allows retention for active cases or for exculpatory evidence. Requires final deletion with three years after a case is resolved. Includes special protections for program participants, that is people who need their address maintained
as confidential for all the reasons we're familiar with.
Section 7 is Uniform Traffic Ticket Update to include transit obstruction citations in the Uniform Traffic Ticket system. And then section eight, there's a blank one time general fund appropriation to fund the implementation of transit obstruction Camera system program with an appropriation directed to MnDOT. And we'll make that determination at some point in the future.
Thank you, members. Are there any questions for Senator Dibble? Senator Lang?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple. I think the bill is a good idea. I think it makes perfect sense. I have historically not liked the camera aspect. This, you know, with the 2007 ruling, I guess the first question is how do we get around that in this bill? I know before we did the. And I think you mentioned that in your testimony, but you're going kind of quick that it is a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty. Is that correct? Is that how we get around the constitutional aspect to it?
Senator Dibble?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Lang. The 2007 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling actually wasn't a finding on constitutionality. It was on statutory authority. And so the city of Minneapolis with their stoplight cameras just kind of did it. And I think there are some other aspects. And Steve Huser is here from the city. He can probably help acquaint us with how we overcame some of those elements of that, of that ruling when we instituted the pilot program in Minneapolis and Mendota Heights for speed cameras. Speed cameras. And we don't yet have stoplight camera pilot, but we will at some point later this year.
But I think. I think the simple version is they
just did it and needed legislative statutory
permission to do so.
And I think that's what this bill accomplishes as well for this purpose.
Senator Lang.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And then the second question. I again agree with the premise of the bill. I think it makes perfect sense. There's a lot of reasons we need to, you know, keep parking where parking should be and keep lanes clear and buses and a lot of other reasons I could think of. I'm curious about effectiveness. You know, a couple of years ago, we had a pretty robust discussion about how many parks parking tickets you can get before it actually affects your driving record or you can have some real penalties. And I think at one point we're up to 10,000. There has to be a limit at some point. And then I did hear you say 60 days prior to the infraction being issued. In my mind, I'm seeing a bus drive down the road and I'm seeing a car parked horribly because of a snow bank or whatever. And if these cameras were to take a picture of that car and then you have to take 60 days to get it moved, or does it take. I mean, that's really where I'm worrying about effectiveness or if the person just chooses not to move it because they know that the crash or the parking ticket could be.
That was a failure on my part
to explain myself clearly. The 60 days is letting the public know that a particular transit route is going to be enforced in this manner. So they have, you know, so the public is aware that they only have
60 days to continue breaking the law in this court before they're going to
get caught with it.
So effectively, that's what it is. It's like trying to do the. We did something similar with the speed
test pilot that's happening in Minneapolis, Mendota Heights, right now.
There was.
So there's like, I don't know, 7. Steve Huser can answer. I can't remember, but there's like,
like
10 or 12 places in Minneapolis where speeding is going to be, is enforced by camera. But before those particular spots went live, if you will, with tickets being issued,
there was A lot of notice in the paper.
These are the places where we're going to have these speed enforcement cameras.
And then even after that, for a
period of time, people only received a warning for speeding in those stretches. Now, of course, if you speed past one of those cameras, you're going to get a citation of some sort.
But it was just an attempt to
try to be fully transparent and give fair warning to the public that this is coming. And so stop blocking, stop parking during the rush hour. You know, I live close to Hennepin Avenue where there's a bus lane. Exclusive use for the bus during the rush hour. And sure enough, you know, almost every day there's a car, which completely defeats
the whole point, Senator Lang.
And thank you, Madam Chair. And I would say that when reading through the bill, I'm thinking maybe there's an easier way to do this and be maybe, possibly more effective and use an established process like calling the police officer and saying, hey, we got a car parked at such an intersection or wherever it may be and reporting that and getting it towed or ticketing or however it may be, of course, using a hands free device on the bus.
But
my point is, without all the complexity and the expense of camera systems and I don't know, I still think it has a valid good idea how we get there. I think maybe a little.
I think, Madam Chair, that's a worthwhile discussion. Some would argue that what you just described is more complex than this. Others. But I understand why you would see this as more complex. So I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I think we have some testimony queued up that'll speak to the efficacy of this system in other cities.
Thank you, Senator Jasinski. We do have some testifiers, but I know you have a question. Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm just a little bit taken off on Senator Lang. First of all, fiscal note. I understand we don't have a fiscal note yet. That would be my concern as Senator Lang, the cost of this. And I understand what we're trying to do here, the small, tedious tasks like this, parking tickets can be better outsourced. But the underlying problem here, and I don't want to beat on this too much, but we have a shortage over probably a thousand or more law enforcement officers in the metro area. And that's the issue. I mean, we need law enforcement and we need to support our law enforcement to get them there. And I think having a law enforcement presence is huge, and it would alleviate a lot of these Issues. And I won't go on, but I think going back a few years back or a year back, there was a bill that said you can have basically an unlimited amount of parking tickets and you can't be towed. We tried to put that number at 5, we tried to put it at 10, we tried to put it at 1000, we tried to put it at ten thousand, we tried to put it at a million, and it was never put into law. So basically, you can have an unlimited number of parking tickets and not be towed. And that's my concern. We need to make these laws so we can enforce them. And if someone is there, you can actually tow it. But to my understanding, and maybe I can have counsel verify this, but I believe the bill that came for us last year is you can have an unlimited number of parking tickets and not be towed. So maybe that counsel can verify that, but that's what I remember in this committee. And again, that's my frustration. Now we're spending time and the expense to put cameras in and do all this. And again, I understand what you're trying to do, Senator Dibble, but the frustrating part is we, you know, if we're not going to have teeth in the law, why have the law? And if you can have an unlimited number of parking tickets and not tow your car, what are we accomplishing? So I'll let the testifiers go on, but that's my concern.
Thank you, Senator Jasinski, Senator Hemingson. Yeager.
Thanks. Can I request a roll call on this one, too, please?
Roll call requested. Roll call granted. All right, let's go to our testifiers. Members, you have the slides for the next testifier in your committee materials. And so online we have Ann Shekhani from Hayden, Iowa. Ms. Shikhani, can you introduce yourself and turn on your camera, please?
Hi. Can you hear me and see me?
I can, but you're a little faint.
Is this any better, members?
Yeah, we can hear you. Go ahead.
Okay, I'll speak loudly. Thank you. To Chair Dibble, to Vice Chair Johnson, Steven Stewart, Ranking Member Jasinski, and all the members of the Transportation Committee this afternoon. I'm sorry that I can't be there with you in person, but I'm very happy and appreciate the opportunity to be here virtually. I'm Anne Shakhani, Director of Legislative and Regulatory affairs at Hayden AI. We're a transportation technology company that works to improve transit operations. And today I'm here to Support Senate File 4377, which would provide Metro Transit authorization for vehicle mounted parking and FL enforcement of bus stop zones, bus lanes and bike lanes. This new authority will improve access, safety and reliability for transit riders across Metro Transit service area, especially for seniors and disabled Minnesotans. It'll also protect the investment that Minnesota has made in its BRT system. Vehicle mounted automated parking enforcement systems are cameras and a computer inside the bus that monitor the roadway for parking violations. Together, the system can automatically detect potential violations, capture a short video and some still images that are packaged for parking enforcement agents to review and ultimately decide if a citation will be issued. When this legislation will be passed, Metro Transit will join its peers in a best practice We've seen these programs are successful in all different kinds of transportation transit markets and they have proven results. Two that I'll talk to you about today are at our largest programs, which are in New York, MTA and Washington, D.C. wMATA, which you'll see on that second slide. But first, one of the most important results that we've seen is for disabled transit users. With enforcement riders that use wheelchairs, the elderly and families with children, everyone can really guarantee that they'll have a safe boarding experience. When a bus can't pull up to a bus stop, we've found that it's a very unsafe situation. People need to walk into active lanes of traffic to board and it can be impossible even for people with wheelchairs to board. But now you all are interested in hearing about results. So in New York City, we've had our program program running for the longest. We've seen actually a 40% reduction in bus stop violations. We've also seen 20% fewer collisions on enforced routes, improved bus speeds. And we know that it works because only 91% of violators get more than one ticket. So people really do learn their lessons and it is an effective strategy for changing driver behavior. We've seen something similar in Washington, D.C. their program started in late 2023 and they've again seen bus speed increases with a 13% increase in speeds on the clear lanes routes where actually outside of the route. They've seen an 11% reduction in speeds. They've seen 41% decrease in bus lane violations and a 30% decrease in bus stop violations and improved disability Access with a 10% increase in wheelchair ramp deployments, which means that some of those buses are deploying their wheelchair ramp over a thousand times per day for disabled riders. And as Senator Diboll discussed, we really have a program that does have privacy at the heart of its design. The bill conforms to existing Minnesota data privacy requirements for both the speed and the red light programs, we are banning the use of biometric tools such as facial recognition. Images can only be used for parking and transit purposes, not for other law enforcement purposes. And the technology only captures a 10 second video and maybe a few still images. And all the other footage is deleted. And we will comply with strict data retention and destruction requirements. And as discussed, to receive a citation review must have happened by a human parking enforcement agency agent. So I'm happy to discuss or answer any questions that you might have. And I urge the passage of Senate file 4377.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Shikhani. Members, any questions for the test fire? Senator Hemingson Yeager
might be out of scope for this committee, but I'm just kind of curious about like where the images and the data are stored. It sounds like it's on the bus itself or does it go into like
a cloud based storage?
Michigan.
Sure. So the bus has a. What's called an edge device. That's the computer box that's on the bus and that maintains the data for a short period of time before it is when it is detected. Then it streams up to a cloud service and then that is hosted on the cloud and that is encrypted and fully protected.
Senator Hemingson Yeager.
Okay, that would be my only concern is just making sure we have all the cybersecurity guardrails intact to make sure that people aren't hacking into it to get access to those images and then that we're not using it for like predictive analytics outside of the scope of what we're trying to do.
Granted. Questions, members? Senator Nelson has a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And my apologies if the question's already been answered. I was just curious why. What if the transit obstruction camera picked up not somebody obstructing transit, but somebody stealing a bank? Is it just those? So just kind of clarify for me what types of images would be. Would they 1. You would think the camera would pick up everything and just certain things can be used kind of. How would that work, Ms. Chicaney?
So the system only captures potential parking infractions. There is a context camera that goes along the street and captures the entire roadway. But if a violation is not captured, that data and those images are deleted off the bus. They never leave the edge device on the bus. And then there are also, as Senator Dippoll mentioned, legal protections for the actual evidence packages that are kept and they can only be used for parking enforcement purposes or for transit operations improvements. Kind of studying what's in the data.
Senator Nelson, any other questions?
No, I'm just kind of pondering that, like, if the camera caught somebody being stabbed or. But I'll listen to the rest, and that might come out later.
All right, members, we have two more testifiers. I'm going to ask them to come up. Melissa Reed from Resolve Strategies and Steve Hooser, City of Minneapolis. Are they here? And I know Steve's here in person. Okay, so Melissa is signaling that she will not be testifying, and then Adam Harrington is here to answer any questions. So go ahead, Mr. Huser, introduce yourself.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Steve Huser. I'm a senior government relations representative for the City of Minneapolis. Thank you to the Chair and members of the Transportation Committee. The City of Minneapolis supports Senate file 4377. And we want to thank Chair Dibble for carrying it this session. Ensuring that our bus and bike lanes are free from illegally parked vehicles ensures that the investments we have made, often with other local and state government, are able to be utilized as intended. Here are some specific examples from our city. 52 Metro Transit buses are blocked at 7th street at Nicollet Mall every day. On average, bus lane blockages last approximately two minutes. 7th street at Nicollet Mall and Lake at Lindale Avenue have an average of three blockages that last over 10 minutes every day. This leads to a less efficient transit ride and impacts all who use those lines. It also impacts those who want to use our bicycle lanes that we've invested in, in their ability to use those bike lanes safely. We are looking at the language of the bill to make sure that it's doing exactly what we want the interaction between the transit providers and the city government to work. But that's a pretty technical detail that we can make sure we get before the next stop. I think I'll pause there and if there's any other questions, happy to answer them.
Members, any questions for our first testifier or second testifier? No questions. Thank you. Senator Dibble, back to you. It looks like we're done with testimony. Does any member. Looks like. Senator Jasinski, you have a question?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And Senator Carlson, you get to go next. I forgot about you, but Senator Jasinski, go ahead.
Again, I understand what we're trying to do here, but again, I just have some issues with the way we're doing this. We don't have a fiscal note. We don't know how much it's going to cost. We don't have rules that actually have teeth in the law to actually be able to tow these people. So I'm going to vote against it. But again, I understand what you're trying to do, Senator Dibble. Just but to me, when you take away the law enforcement's ability to enforce these by taking the ability to tow these cars out of the way, and again, I'm just going to say one last time, we need to support our law enforcement, get more officers on the street and not go with cameras and things like this. So I'm going to vote against it. I understand what you're trying to do, Senator Dibble, but I just can't vote in good conscience that this is going to help. But I appreciate you bringing it forward. And I just again, once again, we need to support our law enforcement, have our cities support our law enforcement, give them the tools they need, and we'll have much better ways to get law enforcement officers to actually police the streets.
Thank you, Senator Jasinski, Senator Carlson Online has a question.
Senator CARLSON thank you, Madam Chair.
And I guess I have a, I have a question as to, you know, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to dig into the details of this, but I support the bill. However, what I'm wondering about is how is this different than the work that we've done to prevent people from doing parking in the handicap spots? You know, we've got a lot of effort in making sure that those handicap spots are treated respectfully and that there is a system that people can actually report a person that does not have a handicap hang tab and their car will be towed away and taken in Minneapolis. It'll be taken to the impound lot. And I, you know, everything that I heard spoken about here for especially disabled individuals and how this interferes with them being able to use the public transportation, it seems to me that there's something that should be a little bit more powerful in the law to get these people out of blocking the transportation ways in our cities or wherever we have the bike lanes, all of those kinds of things, because they do interfere with, with a lot of transit operations that go on. I'm a little bit more sensitive to that because now I am dependent on that kind of transit. But I do think that we need to put a little bit more teeth in it. I think we need to have some and I agree with Senator Jasinski that we got to give some power to this to end it, because I don't think just giving a reminder is going to end the problem. And as people get a little bit more gutsy on this because you can see it in handicap spots that people use handicap spots. Oh, just for a minute. Oh, to drop in and drop out, leaving or sometimes leaving their dog or their kids in the car. But they think that handicap spots are just something that they can use just as a handy spot to be able to leave their car while they go to some temporary appointment. So I, I agree that there should be something that's a little bit more meaty in this law and it should also make it easier to be able to use especially spots where they're interfering with, with inter, I'm sorry, with handicapped persons, either if it's snowy or if there's other issues that, that interfere with them using regular parking. So that's my, my opinion on this and I support it, but reluctantly. So. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'd like to hear what perhaps Senator Dibble, how he responds on this.
Thank you, Senator Carlson. Senator Dibble.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. So, you know, I very much support getting these vehicles removed if they're, you know, using handicapped space or disability spaces inappropriately. Likewise, you know, if they're, if they're blocking those, those, those lanes. I, you know, I would, you know, I, I think, you know, the evidence, of course, in the effectiveness is the experience of other cities where you see a fairly dramatic reduction in these sorts of violations with this sort of enforcement tool where, you know, and, you know, I, you know, I respect and understand the arguments that, that Senator Jasinski is making. The question is similar to the trip conversation that we just had. You know, how do we create the most efficient use of public resources and what do we want police responding to? I mean, we have, you know, we don't actually have police necessarily in Minneapolis running around doing these sorts of parking enforcements. We have the parking enforcement folks who write tickets. And then, you know, my understanding and, you know, Council can help me in the moment, you know, in the moment that a ticket is written, you know, and, you know, if a tow truck is called in, you know, they do the red tag, that vehicle can be, can be removed. But I'm willing to be educated on this subject. If we can actually remove a car in these instances when they're either at an expired parking meter or violating disability parking or, you know, these sorts of things.
Thank you, Senator Dibble, Senator Jasinski.
Thank you, Madam Chair, because I just asked that question, Senator Dibble, the council about that. Just to refresh my memory. So I think a bus lane you can tow, it's just a regular parking stall is where they cannot be towed. And they can have a million unpaid parking tickets, but they can't be towed from that stall. But if they're in a bus lane or bike lane, they can be towed. I'm checking on the handicapped. If they're in a handicap stall, whether they can be towed or not. But a standard stall, you can have 15 million unpaid parking tickets and you can't have your car towed. But can you counsel tell me about handicapped if that's correct as well?
Council?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, a car can be towed. Still parked in a handicap stall or.
Senator Jasinski.
Thank you,
members. Any other questions? Back to you, Senator Dibble. And then if you would like to make a motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll work with Senator Jicz.
I'm also comfortable.
Uncomfortable sending this out here without a fiscal note. We do need to get to Judiciary, you know, I'll talk to Senator. Just asking about bringing it back here before we send it on to Finance so that we have our due diligence that. That we need to do so. Madam Chair, I would move Senate file 4377 be recommended to pass and referred
to the Committee on Judiciary.
Thank you, Senator Dibble. A roll call has been requested. So, Alex, will you please take the roll
Chair Dibble?
Yes.
Vice Chair Johnson.
Stewart.
Yes.
Senator Jasinski.
No.
Senator Carlson? Senator Coleman.
No.
No.
By the way, had to get unmute.
Senator farnsworth? No. Senator hur.
Yes.
Senator hemingson? Yeager.
Yes.
Senator lang? No. Senator mcewen?
Yes.
Senator nelson?
No.
Madam Chair, Senator Hurt.
Can. Can we double check simp Jim Carson? Because I think his null was audio technical difficulty.
Senator Carlson, the motion was for passage out of transportation into Judiciary. Can you confirm how you vote on that?
I voted no. Thank you.
Okay, confirmed. So there being five ayes and five nos, the motion is not adopted.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members.
Senator Dibble, I hand the gavel back to you and Senator Pratt, the next bill up for consideration is Senate File 4426.
Oh, Senator Dibble, can you get Senator Pratt started?
Sure.
Thanks.
Just right there.
We'll just scooch down.
So we.
Members. The fiscal note For Senate file 4426 is being distributed, so take note of that. And Senator Pratt, when you're ready to your bill.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, Senate File 4426 is a bill to allow driver's licenses and IDs to indicate whether somebody has a speech condition or disorder. Madam Chair, when I was Growing up, I was a stutterer. My mom was an educator. I think she called it stammering. And Senator Jasinski was kind enough to remind me today that I haven't maybe fully outgrown it yet, but. And under pressure, I sometimes do go back to stammering or stuttering. But it's something I've worked hard on my entire life. This is important because sometimes when a person with this condition is pulled over, the symptoms could present themselves as a driver being impaired. An officer may think that somebody is trying to delay the proceedings. And so what this does is it allows. It gives the officer warning that there is somebody with a speech condition, and it reduces the stress for both the driver or the person that the officer is talking to as well as the officer. And I think this is a good common sense bill. It was brought to me by these fine people, and I'll let them talk about it even more.
Thank you, Senator Pratt. My daughter's a speech therapist, so she has educated me so completely on the many speech conditions out there. And I'm very grateful that you brought this bill forward, and I'm grateful to be on this bill as well. So it looks like we have three testifiers. If you could say your name and then go forward with your testimony. Is there something. I assume you are Brian. I am Brianne Morbitzer. Go ahead and introduce yourself.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Brianne Morbitzer. I'm a speech language pathologist. I live and work here in St. Paul. I've been treating stuttering almost exclusively throughout my career. I support this bill because it's a straightforward accommodation with significant safety advantages. An estimate of 87,000 Minnesotans to. That's more than the population of Mankato. You may not hear stuttering most days, and that's because stuttering can be variable. For the person who stutters, there's great effort to carefully choose just the right words or they may avoid speaking altogether. So in one moment, talking feels easy. In the next moment, the words are restrained or even completely blocked. What is reliable is that stress heightens stuttering. Most people would not trust that their speech alone could properly explain what's happening. So consider that traffic stop. It's one of the most common high stakes communication context. A person who stutters dreads. Between the pressure to respond quickly and the officer's unfamiliarity with stuttering, there's potential for dangerous escalation. A stuttering designation gives officers prompt, accurate and very important information. It does remove burden from the driver to explain themselves. Under stress, it's an advantage to that person, to law enforcement and further to emergency responders, tsa, a hotel clerk and beyond. I am always thinking of parents too. Parents of kids who stutter are already worrying right now about their child's future in these contexts. This is assurance that Minnesota has made a place for their child. We all benefit from this designation and Minnesotans who stutter are absolutely deserving of this support.
Thank you. Thank you. Do any members have questions for Ms. Morbitzer? Excellent. Then we'll go to our first testifier. James Clark, would you like to go next? Followed by sapran su nanda. Mr. Clark.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Jim Clark, live in Prior Lake Scott County. My purpose here is to testify for this bill to identify notes stuttering on our driver's license. Stuttering? Oh, I'm a lifelong stutter. Stuttering is what we do when we're trying not to stutter.
Ironically,
there's consonants and vowels. Consonants like B or C or D is lips and tongue and teeth and we can do the B, C, D but we can often repeat and bouncing or just Jim Clark like that. The other way is like in a vowel where it's more of a ah, ah sound. And you have to it's just a free, free airway. There's no way you can say ah unless you just relax and say ah. So with that in mind, then saying our name is often one of the most difficult things because there's no way around it. There's no synonym, there's no thesaurus that can get you through that. So you have to go Jim Clark. You know, you have to make it through. And we do that all our lives in the corporate. Of course, one of the stressful situations where this bill would address is when you're in a traffic stop and you're asked for your name and your driver's license and you might have a really hard time because you're anxious and stressful situation even if you don't stutter probably. And so it might come where you the black would be the worst when you come couldn't get the word out. So I think that this is an excellent bill. It would help the officer seeing the stutter to perhaps be more patient and listen slower.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Our next testifier, subhan su Nanda. Mr. Nanda,
thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to give my testimony. My name is Subransh Ananda and I stutter. I have always had a stutter since I could Speak. I might get my words out without a block most of the time and sound confident when I'm in a relaxed mood or when I'm with my friends or when I'm doing prepared speech, just like right now. But that's not the case all the time. Sometimes, especially in stressful situations and while interacting with someone who's at a position of authority, like my boss at work, I stutter a lot and can hardly get any words out. Imagine being pulled over by an officer and you are already stressed about the situation and not sure how it will go. The officer approaches your window and asks for your license and registration. You open your mouth and the words won't come. You know what you want to say. Your brain is working perfectly fine, but your speech won't work. This may be misunderstood as being impaired and uncooperative while having just a simple stutter. This bill asks for something small but profoundly meaningful to us. A voluntary speech disorder. Identifier on a driver's license. A simple code or notation that tells an officer before a word is ever spoken that this person may communicate differently. A two second glance at that identifier can replace two minutes of misunderstanding and can result in a routine traffic stop before tension ever builds. For people who stutter. This bell gives us the a voice before we even speak. I urge all the members of the committee to vote yes on this bill. Thank you, Mayor Harrim. Chair or Sturgeon?
Thank you. Yes.
Sorry your head was down and we
did a little switcheroo, so. All right, so we have questions at this point. Senator Johnson, Stewart, and then Senator Herb.
Thank you. Oh, anybody else hear that? Okay, I'm the only one. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I just want to offer up. This is great. First off, my daughter's a speech pathologist. She would have gotten mad if I said it wrong. But what I want to bring up is my dad had Parkinson's disease for 30 years and so he was able to drive for about the first 20 of it. And hearing you speak, I realized you don't have Parkinson's. But my dad stuttered as a symptom of his Parkinson's disease, you may remember I've said he was my driver's ed teacher, so he was an excellent driver. But when he got nervous is when his. He just couldn't talk. And so I'm so pleased about this bill. Glad to have it before us. And I would encourage. I'm sure there's many other ailments that act in the similar that have symptoms that are similar. And so I'M very grateful and would encourage members to vote yes on this bill.
All right, Senator. Her.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to a testifier. You know, maybe my speech to you may be just fine, but I struggle with stutter in my early days, you know, having hard learning and sometimes my adult days too. Sometimes I hesitate, but it become a benefit to me because I hesitate, I listen more. So I do gain that advantage. I appreciate the two sets of. If I come on board, I appreciate Senator Pratt. I mean, if there's room on this, I'd be happy to. Happy to add it on. But you have five people already, you know, and so it's an experience we have to go through. And being a person of color, myself, and not just color, but also a person who America still perceives as a perpetual foreigner. So it's not so much the language, but it's the perpetual foreigner. And the stubbornness, they add more confusion to the situation. And, you know, being that I have experience early in life with that experience, stuttering, you know, when people make fun, even our leaders on the other eyes that I don't tend to agree. I don't. I don't support that part of making fun of people who even slur in their speech, you know.
So.
Yeah. Thank you for coming. I like this bill.
All right.
Thank you, Senator. Herr Senator jasinski.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And thank you, Senator Pratten. I'm proud to be on this bill. I think it's a good bill. Just a question. Senator Lang had to leave over to another meeting, but he had a question. So on line number 1.11, Mr. Watson, and it says the commissioner must not include any specific medical information on the driver's license or Minnesota identification card. And Senator Lang's question was what about diabetes or heart condition? What specifically? I think we have ours rather tailored to what we can put on there. We not. But if someone is a diabetic and wants their. On their card, what all is allowed on the card? And do we have to do that legislatively or. Remind me the process on that again, A heart condition or whatever, a health condition that you'd want on the. On the driver's license. What. How is that done? Sorry to put you on the spot, Mr. Watson, but.
All right.
And then Senator Lang left the room. He asked a question, left the room, but he wanted me to do it. So if you could just specify. Because again, it says the commissioner must not include any specific metal information, medical information on the driver's license.
Remember, he's new to transportation.
Well, Maybe I'll. My question is you then, Senator W. You've been here for 23 or 26 years maybe?
You know, I don't.
As long as I've been around, I don't quite recall, Mr. Watson. It's a lot of wind up. Senator Jasinski, I'm going to have to get back to you on that. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head, but I'll.
Maybe Director Zhang from DVS would have an idea, but he. I'm going to phone a friend here and maybe Director Zhang.
Director Zhang,
thank you.
With the Driver and Vehicle Services Division, all the designations are called out in statute, so we would need some designation in legislation for us to put something on the card.
Thank you. And then as long as he's up there, one last question on the fiscal note. I see it's a relatively small fiscal note and a lot of items like this sometimes are absorbed by dvs. My question is, why is DVS not able to absorb this cost in the fiscal Note?
Director Zhong.
Mr.
Chair. Thank you. Senator Jasinski. When we put our fiscal notes together, we are putting our best faith, best effort for it to put a clear cost forward. These are the costs that are coming from the vendor to make these changes on the card. Also some costs related to printing new applications. That's something that deputy registrars are really interested in making sure that we make available to them. And so we include those in the cost so that we can be transparent about what it would actually cost to administer this bill.
Senator Jinsky.
Mr. Chair, one last question. What's the balance of the DVS account right now?
Director Zhong.
Mr.
Chair.
Senator Jinski, I not sure about the balance of the overall account. I'm. I'm sure I can get back to you. On the actual balance, we have an operating budget that we administer legislation through, and these would be costs that would have to come out of our operating budget if we were to. If this bill were to be enacted.
Senator Draczynski, thank you.
Just one last comment. Again, we've seen bills in front of us where they absorb the cost. And I just this dollar amount I would think would be one that the DVs could look at absorbing. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Dasinski.
As long as we're on the subject of the cost. Ms. Boyd, did we do a quick walk through the fiscal note already? No. Would you mind just doing that to
acquaint us and the public with the fiscal note?
Sure.
Mr. Chair. The fiscal note shows a one time cost of approximately 140,000. That would be from the Special Revenue Fund, specifically the Driver and Vehicle Services operating account. The breakdown of that, there's some detail on page two. The bulk of it would be a contract amendment with a third party vendor that prints driver's licenses and ID cards. They'd need additional programming to put the new indicator on the card, and that would be $130,000 for that amendment and programming. Additionally, as Director Zhang said, the indicator would need to be printed on driver's license 90 applications. So that change would be about $11,000 one time. There also be some MnDrive programming costs of about $13,000. Those would be absorbed in the current MnDrive vendor contract.
Yeah.
So that total would be about 141,001 time from the special.
Thank you so much, Senator Dasinski. Our plan is to lay this over for possible inclusion so we can have more conversation.
Maybe we can prevail upon the agency to absorb all or part of this expense. So.
All right.
So, Mr.
Chair.
Senator Pratt, thank you.
I think the pathologist. The speech pathologist has something to add to the question.
Please.
Yes.
Well, encompassing speech disorders. There's a lot of different diagnoses, but the wording of speech condition would absorb those.
I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
I didn't quite catch.
I think what we're trying to say, Mr. Chair, is when we say no specific medical condition, there's no description of the specific disorder or condition that somebody has, just that they have one kind of in general. And there may be many different diagnoses that they may have.
All right, thank you, Senator Hemingson. Yeager, thanks.
Kind of looking at the fiscal note as well. I have a question about the effective date. So I noticed there's not one listed since it's a cost. That would lead me to assume that it's a July 1st effective date. Correct.
Anybody?
Can you help?
There's a question about the effective date. Can you repeat the question? For council?
I'm assuming since it's not listed that it's at a July 1st effective date or August.
The effective date would be August 1st, if one is not specified to the question.
You said July 1st.
August, August 1st.
Oh, okay. For policy.
Okay. So knowing that, like the state fiscal year starts on July 1st, that is when my understanding is then if the implementation goes into effect August 1st. Are you, like, is there some room to talk with dvs to make sure that, like, the programming could actually be. I don't think the programming could be done on the same day that it passes. We would need some time after that to get programming up and running.
Director zhong.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Senator Henderson Yeager. Yes, there is, there's. We do need some time to do the programming, also to work with a vendor to update their template for printing. And so we would encourage an effective date a little bit further into the year. Something like January 1st would be. Would be reasonable. We have generally a six month lead time that the vendor requires as far as for the printing, for the card printing. As far as the technology changes. The team has looked at this and this is a relatively small change. And so this could be done quickly on our end, on our end. And as far as the technology, but again, for the card vendor, six month Runway.
Senator Hammond S. So, Senator Pratt, would
you be amenable to looking at pushing back the effective date? Maybe that could be part of the laid over conversations.
Sure.
Senator Pratt.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Henderson Yeager.
Absolutely.
You know, we'll talk to DBS and make sure that we set that right. I think the expectation was that the policy would kick in August 1st and then, you know, DVS would deliver when they can. But if it. If it makes more sense for DVs to have an effective date out to say, January, I think that's totally, totally acceptable.
Senator Hemington Yeager.
Yeah, thank you. I just want to make sure that like, we can deliver on what the public is expecting and if they want that, we want the programming to be ready to go when they request that. So thank you.
All right.
All right.
Anything further, members?
All right.
Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Johnson, I request a roll call.
We're going to just lay this bill over for possible.
All right. All right. Anything further, members? All right, with that, we are will.
I'm sorry, Senator Pratt, final word.
I just want to thank. I just want to thank you, Senator Johnson, Stewart, Jasinski and Abler for being my co authors. And I appreciate the. The time to talk about this. It's. It's important to a lot of Minnesotans and, and thank you.
Great. Thank you, Senator Pratt. So with that, we will lay Senate file 4426 over for possible inclusion. All right, so Senator Johnson, Str.
Mr. Chair, I move to reconsider the vote on the motion to Recommend Senate file 4300, 4377 to pass and refer to judiciary. And I request a roll call.
All right, the clerk will take the roll.
Mr. Chair. Senator, just so you know, Senator Lang is in another committee. He would like to vote. So I'm going to text him right now, see if he can get back for the roll call.
All right, we will
pause.
So is he going to be a bit. I mean we can come back to this later.
Yeah, why don't we do Senator Hoffman bill first and we'll get him back by then because I know he's got.
Senator Johnster withdraws her motion.
All right.
Senator Hoffman, welcome. Bring us home. Senate file 4167.
Yes, Mr. Chair. For as many bike lanes that you put in in our wonderful beautiful state, I will absolutely take you home on a 10 speed win if you guys remember that one. Senate File 4167 would create a protective services unit within the Capital Security Division of the State Patrol.
Mr.
Chair and members, this new protective unit would be charged with providing security and protection services for constitutional officers, Minnesota Supreme Court Justices and state legislators. The new unit would also conduct ongoing threat assessments to life and safety for state officials and coordinate with the legislative sergeant at arms and local law enforcement if local protective services are needed.
Mr.
Chair, we've seen an exponential increase in three threats of violence and harm to elected officials in Minnesota. And we've seen all too tragically what happens when these threats are acted upon. Political violence is unacceptable and must be rejected. And we must also adjust to this new reality.
I pissed Scott off.
Oh, Senator Carlson, please mute your zoom.
Thanks.
All right, Senator Hoffman.
Political violence is unacceptable and must be rejected. Mr.
Chair.
But we must also adjust to this new reality. This bill is a necessary response and would help keep elected officials and Supreme Court Justices safe and dedicate the resources necessary to prevent future tragedies from happening.
Mr.
Chair.
Thank you. I ask for your support. And the Department of Public Safety is here if you want to ask any questions. Mr.
Chair.
All right. Questions, members. Mr.
Chair.
Senator Jasinski.
Thank you. Thanks, John. Or Senator Hoffman. Sorry, a question on the bill. So on page number six, I believe on line 13 you talk about who can request this. And let me see here, it's dates of 6.13 upon written or electronic request of the speaker of the House or the Majority Leader of the Senate. Provide. My question is, are you open to opening up to the minority leaders of both sides? So actually it could be the majority or the minority in each body. Just wondering, you know, for reasons they may not want to go through the majority leader for an event or something like that, they could actually open it up to, you know, the majority and the minority in each body to request this special circumstance.
Senator Hoffman.
Yeah, Mr. Chair. That's a great question. And I think there should be an open dialogue of conversation amongst everybody because when. When one of us gets threats or one of us happens, then we all are at jeopardy. And so that would make sense to make sure that those four entities are actually communicating with one another. So however you'd want to do that, that makes sense to me. Doesn't it to you, Mr.
Chair?
Does Senator Hoppin.
Yes, thank you, Senator Jasinski.
Thank you.
With that, then I'd offer the A1. I think the language is correct. It was been put together by staff, and if he can get you a copy of that, I think it addresses the issue.
All right, so Senator jasinski offers the A1, which accomplishes the goal that he just described.
We'll pause just a moment until that amendment is distributed.
And Senator hoffman. I'm sorry, Mr.
Chair, Senator Dasinski, apologies.
We just got the amendment, so I didn't have time to talk to you about this. So I hate to throw it on you on the fly here, but I think you can understand it.
Senator Hoffman, do you know there's.
Mr. Chair, if he would ever have done this to David Thomasoni, there would have been, you know, napkins thrown at him right now. And so I just want to remind him what his friend would have done if that would have been surprise. You know I'm kidding. Does this Mr. Chair, address the communication between the two. Between all four entities? Senator.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And Senator Hoffman, I don't believe it does what you had talked about, but it allowed either one of the majority or the minority party to request this. But I'm open to language if staff counsel, once again on the fly can change that or. And again, I apologize, this kind of came up right before. I just looked at the language and didn't realize that, you know, you either party, the minority majority could request it, and then also the Chief justice as well. You'll see in the language there. The Chief justice could ask that as well. But if council would have a language that would allow each of those members to talk to each other, I would be fully supportive of that.
So, Council, do you understand the gist of the. I do. All right,
A moment.
All right, we'll pause for a moment. Yes, thank you. Do you want to keep the part about the Supreme Court Justice, Chief justice able to request separate or.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And Mr. Watson. No, I don't believe the Chief Justice. I don't think we'd have to. I think more the bodies, but I'd be open to the author. What what he thinks is appropriate.
Senator Hoffman, Mr.
Chair and Senator Jasinski. I think there's a, needs to be a bounce effect. Right. Because we had heard in the events that led up to me being in the hospital for many, many months and that there were certain entities that did not weren't even aware what had happened. And so there's this, there's got to be some kind of bounce effect of communication chain happening within this campus that everybody's aware of what's going on without it being so. I don't know what that would look like, Senator Jasinski, but I think you're on the right place on this. Right. And you know, somehow create a bounce effect in there so people are understanding it.
And Mr.
Chair, Senator Jasinski, thanks. So again in the detail. So I think was more of an off site event. Let's say that the minority party has some event that they typically may not want to let the majority party what's going on so they could go directly to law enforcement, let them know of the issue and things like that and vice versa. The majority has an event they don't want the minority to know about and you could come up with a million different ideas. Maybe it's a fundraiser, maybe it's some event. I don't know what it is, but I just don't think that it would be appropriate that the minority would have to go through majority party to let them know where it's going to be. So they'd have their own independence with the law enforcement agency to give them notice to what their event was that they may need security at.
Senator Hoffman makes sense.
That's fine. I just the communication back backwards. If something were to happen, like if there was an incident, I just want to make sure that everybody is aware of the, of the incident that that is out there regardless. So I think he's, I think we're, I think we're in agreement. Mr. Chair May for the record.
Okay. So Mr. Watson then thinks that this
at least for the purpose of initiating
protective services, this accomplishes that task.
The conversation about communication of incidents is
a somewhat, a slightly separate conversation. There is the matter of the judiciary, which is a part of this amendment that I don't think has yet been fully discussed. Senator Jasinski, do you want to talk about your goals with including the Judiciary? The lines 1.4 to 1.8 of the amendments.
Thank you Mr.
Chair.
That just kind of came up with counsel. As far as we were addressing the minority majority issue and the Chief Justice, I guess I didn't think of the way that would work through that. And the bill, does it have another stop? Maybe we could just clarify this. But before the next stop, maybe this is the spot. We can have some more time to really deliberately think of how we want to do it. I think we're addressing the issue that Senator Hoffman and myself agree on versus the House and the Senate. And maybe we have more time. Maybe there's another stop. We can address that before the next hearing or next committee.
I believe it goes from here to finance, Mr.
Chair. And we both sit on Finance, so I think we can address that. Or no, you don't.
I do not.
I am sorry. I sit on finance.
I'm a taxer, not a spender.
Happy to address that issue. That was good.
Sorry. Okay, so Senator Dasinski, can we limit
your Amendment to lines 1.1 to 1.3
in that case and have the judiciary
conversation in Finance, or, you know, we can put it on now and take
it out and finance.
Mr. My preference would be. Since we have the amendment already done, let's draft that way. But if it needs attention, I'm happy to author that in Finance to change it the way we, we can mutually agree. Senator Hoffman and I will work together and figure out how we want that done and address that in Finance, if that's okay with you.
So that. So you want the entirety of the A1?
Yes, I would offer the A1 as is.
All right, questions, members? Senator Dusinski renews his motion to offer the A1amendment which Senator Hoffman takes as friendly.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, say no. Motion carries.
All right. Anything further, members? All right, so to make this bipartisan, Senator Jasinski, would you like to move Senate file 40167?
Absolutely, Mr. Chair. I would recommend Senate file 4167 get approved and be forwarded to Finance Committee as amended. Thank you.
All right.
All right.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Close.
Say no. Motion carries. All right.
Okay.
We can do that.
Yeah.
One motion.
Oh, yeah, we'll do it at the end. Senator Hoffman, Mr.
Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me and Senator Howe to present Senate file 4273. This bill continues the salary and benefits survey conducted by the Office of the Legislated Auditor to, to evaluate the State Patrol compensation. Senator Dibble, this has been in your historic bank with Senator Howell for many, many years. But before we get into the process on it, I have an A1 authors amendment that I would like to have somebody make a motion and move.
So moved Senator zinski moves the A1amendment. It's an author's amendment.
So all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed say no.
Motion carries.
All right.
Senator Hoffman, thank you.
And I know there's a couple of. There's one more or two other amendments, but we could do those, I suppose, Senator Howe. And we're doing that. But this process matters not just for the State Patrol. Right. When we're maintaining this process, it's important to give us lawmaker or the policymakers a clear, consistent and data driven foundation for evaluating compensation across state law enforcement agencies. What you're looking at is law enforcement broadly, including BCA agents, conservation officers, State Patrol and members of the Department of Corrections Fugitive Apprehension Unit. Under state law, the commissioner is required to use the most recent survey data when negotiating contracts in practice. Recent settlement offers, however, have not reflected that intent. Today, Mr. Chair and Members, the State Patrol ranks 34th out of 35 agencies with a top wage of 52.06 per hour, compared to an average of nearly $56 an hour. With 16 of 35 agencies already settled, they projected 2026 average top wage is approximately $57.76 per per hour. That further widens the gap that we closed pretty tight in 2014, 2017, 2021. The state law enforcement officers are not average, Mr. Chair. Our state law enforcement enforcement officers carry specialized training, significant responsibilities and high risk in their daily work compensating them at least at the legislative comparison group averages, both reasonable and necessary.
Mr.
Chair, this has real consequences. Recruits focus on starting pay, Time to stop pay and available leave. Many agencies now offer hiring bonuses and retention incentives. Highly trained state law enforcement officer is in demand and agencies are competing for that talent. It's also important, Mr. Chair, to note that state state law enforcement officers have been working without a contract since July 1st of 2025. Senate file 4273 is practical, it's bipartisan, it's got a history of work that continues to be a transparent data driven process. But ultimately this is about providing lasting financial security, recruiting and retaining highly trained state law enforcement officers. Mr. Chairman and members, I have with you my co author on this and actually who's been the lead in all this conversation is Senator, I almost said John Sterling Howe. Can you believe that I did it in your mother, your mom. How many times I've done that in the years, Jeffrey, it's just like really bad. But we also got. Mike Ledoux and Jason Thiel are with us too. But Senator Howe, Jeff Howe.
Senator Howe, thank you I did.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. You know, we have attempted. I can remember when the Commissioner of Management and Budget told me as we were trying to adjust the salaries for the state law enforcement folks, and they told me, just get a salary study and we will use it. Well, we got the salary study and they didn't use it. So then we changed the law that said they had to use it, and they still don't use it. So here we are back again, trying to get these folks at least up in an average of their comparable group. So that's where we're at. I don't want to. You know, we've had to go back, and actually the legislature had to force increases for our State Patrol. That shouldn't be what we have to do to get our law enforcement folks paid a decent wage. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Senator Howe.
All right, questions at this point, Senator
Lang, I don't know if this is
the appropriate time, but I do have the A3 that I was asked to offer.
Mr.
Chair,
no time like the president. That's what I was hoping for.
The A3 is an amendment, and I'll maybe have Senator Howell explain a little bit deeper, but it has to deal with the volunteer chaplain corps that serves Minnesota State Patrol.
All right.
Senator Howe, do you want to explain the A3?
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And, Senator Lang, thank you for offering. What they're looking for is they want to actually recruit and train chaplains for their force. It's an important role in. What they need to do is actually provide for their expenses for their transportation, their lodging, and their subsistence. And this is actually copied off of what they do. I believe the conservation officers have chaplains, and this is actually the same verbiage out of that section of law, so. Right. So it's. There it is right there. It comes out of 84089, the volunteers and natural Resources Program. So it's actually the same verbiage only applied to the State Patrol, and the cost will be absorbed by the department.
All right, thank you. I see it's permissive as well. Senator Hoffman, if you could respond to the A3.
All right. See a thumbs up.
Questions? Members? All right.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, say no. Motion carries. All right.
Mr. LeDoux, welcome.
Mr.
Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mike LeDoux. I'm the director of Legislation, Legislative affairs for Law Enforcement Labor Services, representing more than 8,800 officers and public safety professionals across Minnesota. I previously served 31 years with the Minnesota State Patrol, including as president of the Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Association. Thank you, Senator Hoffman and Senator Howe for your leadership. We strongly Support Senate File 4273. The bill continues the Senate Salary and Benefits Survey conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor to evaluate State Patrol compensation. The survey provides objective data comparing state patrol compensation with larger municipal law enforcement agencies, including those in the metropolitan areas and cities of the first class. Maintaining that process is important because it gives policymakers a clear and consistent data driven foundation. Today, the State Patrol ranks 34 out of 35 agencies in that comparison group. As Senator Hoffman said, with a top wage of 5,206 per hour, compared to that average of nearly 56. Again, state law enforcement officers are not average. This is the comparison group that the legislature established. I do not believe it's unreasonable to expect state law enforcement officers to be compensated at least at the average of that comparison group. While I personally think they should probably be even higher than that, I do not believe it's unreasonable to compensate them at that average. We either recruit the best of the best or we get the best of the worst. As Senator Jasinski pointed out earlier. I looked at the actuarial reports earlier today. We have about 2,454 folks on deck in five years to retire. The competitive job market that we're experiencing right now will continue. Part of that, obviously is a compensation package. And I can tell you the young recruits today want to know how much you're going to pay them, how quick I get to top pay, and how much vacation do I get? That really is of their top concern. I appreciate the support of this committee. I've had the pleasure of coming before this committee on this subject matter for almost a decade and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Great. Thank you. Mr. Ladue. Questions, members?
All right, Jason Thiel.
Thank you, Chair. Members, my name is Jason Teal. I serve proudly as the union president, now taking over Mike's spot. I was here to talk about the A3amendment. Looks like they already went through. I appreciate that. The chaplain program is very successful. We use them on all sorts of deals. When our MRT unit gets called down and those troopers are away from their families for several days, they're there. We use them on death notifications, which is probably the worst part of our job is when you have to go knock on somebody's door and tell them their loved ones not coming home. If we ask them, they'll come there also with us. So it just shows that the Agency cares for its people beyond the job. And thank you very much for loading.
Yes, thank you so much. What is your rank?
A trooper.
Trooper Thiel. All right, all right, all right. Thank you.
Okay, thanks, John.
We, we do have a fiscal note which I was going to ask Ms. Boyd to walk through, but I'm wondering if the amendments modifies the fiscal note.
Senator Hoffman, Senator Howe and I, that was the original prior to the A1amendment. Mr. Chair, members, this would be factual after the A1amendment. This should not be factual.
Right. I see Ms. Randall nodding her head in the back in agreement. So now even more vigorously.
So.
All right, so yes, I think, I think the amendment was, was an effort to address the fiscal implications, which I appreciate. You know, it does raise the question though, which I think is pointed out in the Management and Budget letter and maybe we can have more conversation. And this removes the, it confines the analysis, the comparison to the pay portion only, not benefits. You know, the question that management and budget raises is, you know, then do we get a real apples to apples comparison because benefits are worth a lot as well. How do we respond to the MMB critique?
I can, I'll add that and then I'll let Mike take it from there. But Senator House, truly, Mr. Chair, that right now they do have that. They do have a benefit there that other folks probably do not have. And that's calculated into their 34 out of 35. So it's. If you take those benefits out, they'll probably be 35 out of 35. So it'll actually drop them when you're just doing with wages because they do have a better benefits package. But when you take that out, they'll actually drop even further. So to me it's a mute point whether they take in the benefits or they don't. That not really. You can tell that they're not even with the benefits figured in, they're not getting an average salary.
All right, thank you, Mr. Ladue.
Mr.
Chair, committee members, certainly benefits are an important part of compensation. I think we all agree what has changed over time is you no longer just simply have dental and or health insurance. You have HSAs, you have high deductible plans. I don't want to speak for the legislative auditor, of course, but it makes it extremely difficult for an apples to apples comparison. You literally have an apple, a carrot, a piece of salary. That being said, we do have a valuable benefit that we have retained through collective bargaining. Retiree health insurance, which is provided at the end of a law enforcement officer career. I would Argue respectfully, sir, that it's more of a retention benefit. A 23 year old recruit does not necessarily look at a benefit they get 30 years towards the end of their career. The other thing I would point out, which a lot of people maybe don't realize because they haven't lived this maybe to the degree I have, I was fortunate enough to have that full career. I made it to 55, so I obtain that benefit. If somebody along the way departs the agency before they reach 50, they get nothing. At 50, they get a partial benefit. At 55, you get the full benefit. Leave a day before you get nothing. I always like to use my nephew as an example. He works for the Duluth Police Department. He used to have retiree health insurance in that particular agency. They chose to do a different model. They put $12,000 into a healthcare savings plan 36 months after hire and they do an ongoing contribution of 2 or 3% into that account. So when he reaches retirement age, he has his own health insurance plan. I hope I've articulated that, sir. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much. All right, Senator Drzynski, Mr.
Chair, and thank you. I apologize. I had a brief discussion with Senator Howe. So talk about a little bit. We expect that the cost of the wages and the benefit study. So one is relatively easy and the other one is a little bit more complicated. So tell me what the intent is here as far as the wages versus the benefits. How often you do those studies? I see we're doing them every two years after the year. But is that just the wages or is that the wages and the benefits study being done? And just talk about what it takes to do either both of those.
Senator Howe, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. Senator Jasinski, when you do the salary and the benefits right now it takes one of the ola's people six months to do that. Benefits and salary. That won't be the case because if we just take the salary piece and that's why they were, that's why you had a cost there, that's why you had a fiscal note, was because we needed more people in order to do that huge study taking it down just to the salary. That's why we don't have a fiscal note anymore, is because it that's relatively easy. You don't have to go into the contract to figure out exactly what health care benefits they have, who has what kind of a dental program. And so without having to do that, the salary study is very, very simple
and easy to do.
And that's why the fiscal note goes away.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And thank you, Senator Howell.
Thank you. I see Ms. Randall's head nodding.
All right, Mr.
Chair. Senator Hoffman, is that a yes? She back there nodding yes, or is
she saying she's saying no?
It's all good. Great.
If you want.
Mr. Chair.
If you want the direct compensation conversation. I mean, Mr. LeDoux is as well versed in that as you are as well. But if that's something, you're good, that's fine.
Yeah, great.
We're good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, so we are going to lay this over for possible inclusion. So thank you very much. Senate File 4273, as amended, is laid over for possible inclusion. Thank you very much for a great hearing, Mr.
Chair.
Members, thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
All right, so, Senator Johnson.
Sterk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I now move to reconsider the vote on the motion to Recommend Senate File 4377 to pass and refer to Judiciary. And I request a roll call vote.
All right, so Senator Johnson removes that. We reconsider Senate file 4377. So we'll first take that vote, and then I may or may not have a motion after that. So the clerk will take the roll chair.
Dibble.
Yes.
Vice Chair Johnson.
Stewart.
Yes.
Senator Jasinski.
No.
Senator Carlson.
Yes.
Senator coleman.
No.
Senator farnsworth.
Yes.
Yes,
senator.
Senator her.
Yes.
Senator hemingson. Yeager.
Yes.
Senator lang.
No.
Senator mcewen?
Yes.
Senator nelson.
So, on a vote of 7 to 4, the motion to reconsider passes. So I will move Senate File 43, 377 with be moved to be referred to Judiciary Committee without recommendation.
So I'll restate that.
I move that Senate File 4377 be referred to the Committee on Judiciary without recommendation. And I will request a roll.
Chair. Dibble.
Yes.
Vice chair johnson. Stewart.
Yes.
Senator jasinski.
Say that one more time. Sorry I missed that.
This was the motion to refer, but without recommendation to Judiciary.
Aye.
Senator Carlson. Senator coleman. Senator carlson.
Yes.
Senator coleman. Senator farnsworth.
No.
Senator hur.
Yes.
Senator hemingson. Yeager.
Yes.
Senator lang. Aye. Senator mcewen?
Yes.
Senator nelson.
Yes.
On a vote of 9 to 1, the motion passes. All right, members, big day Wednesday. Trying to avoid an extra hearing this week. So we kind of packed the agenda kind of tight. We're going to try to be efficient. We'll see if we succeed. And so with that, we are adjourned. Oh, Senator Tracynski.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think I saw the agenda, but. So as far as the automated vehicles, what's the plan on those bills? If you just talk a little bit of the process on the bills, how we're doing that with those couple different variations, you just talk about the process.
Thank you. Thank you. So my plan is to bring in a proposal, an amended, you know, kind of a bill that takes in a number of elements from the other bill underneath my bill.
So I'll bring in an amended, an
amendment or a proposed amendment to my bill.
I will be in conversation with you before then to see what you think.
I would be interested.
Thank you.
Mr.
Thanks. With that, we are adjourned.
Sam.