Committee on State and Local Government - Part 1 - Mar 27, 2026

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Chair.

So

So.

Certainly. And members, any questions or comments or anybody in the audience that would like to testify on the bill. Seeing none, Senator Augustafson moves Senate File 4262 to be recommended to pass and refer to taxes. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr.

This bill is a really fun bill and not just because the subject area is pretty cool, right to name the toboggan as the official state sled of Minnesota. But the reason why I was motivated to do this was because of the people who stepped forward to ask me to do this. I think it's really important when we give young people the experience of what it's like to pass a bill. They have to write it, they have to lobby for it, they have to get an author to sign onto it. They watch it get drafted and then go through the committee process. And in a time where a lot of people look at politics and government as something that maybe seems too far reach or too impossible or a place that feels confusing and divisive, I'm hopeful and it gives me a lot of hope for the future that there are young people who are still interested in it and see it as a vehicle of something that can help people. And if this is the way that they get involved, I think it's wonderful. So if you want to look at your packet, and I really would encourage you to because there is a very sweet letter in there from somebody who's providing written testimony. But here's just some of the quotes I think from the St. Paul Toboggan Club. I think tobogganing is special because everyone can do it together. Even if you are little or old, it makes winter fun instead of just cold. And by passing this, we, we would be honoring the toboggan's history and celebrating Minnesota's outdoor winter culture. By investing in youth led initiatives, this bill creates a more active and connected community. There is more that I'm sure we'll hear from our testifiers on the toboggan history and the significance of this in Minnesota. But as somebody who married into a Swedish name, Gustafson, I think this is also a really fun way to kind of celebrate winter and, you know, all of the fun that you can have in a Minnesota winter. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lillian Tinty and I am a high school student from St. Paul. And today I speak on behalf of the St. Paul Toboggan Club and the Minnesota Toboggan Project in strong support of this bill to designate the toboggan as the official sled of Minnesota. For thousands of years, long before Minnesota became a state, indigenous peoples, including the Ojibwe and Dakota, used toboggans as an essential tool for survival. These sleds carried families, supplies, and food across deep winter landscapes. Built to glide directly over snow without runners, the toboggan is uniquely suited for northern environments like ours. As the fur trade developed, one of the earliest and most influential forces in Minnesota's history, the toboggans became even more important. Indigenous trappers and traders used them to transport furs and goods across vast distances in winter, helping build the economic foundation of our state. Without the toboggan, that movement would not have been possible. And this history is not distant.

Right here at our state capitol, there were once toboggan runs, families gathered on these grounds, embracing winter not as something to endure, but as something to celebrate. And that spirit is still alive today. I want to share a quick perspective from a younger generation of tobogganers. Emmett Kolbe, age 9, says, I like history, and getting to use toboggans and learn about the past, sledding with friends and meeting new people is fun. Organizations like the St. Paul Toboggan Club and the Minnesota Toboggan Project are working to preserve and revive this tradition. We are not creating something new. We are protecting something that is so deeply Minnesotan. And no sled represents that better than the toboggan. Designating the toboggan as the official state sled is more than symbolic. It's a recognition of the people, traditions and resilience that shaped Minnesota. So let's make it official. Thank you for your time and consideration.

No, Mr. Chair, again, I think that this is a really good example of how we can blend different traditions and to, you know, celebrating Minnesota, Minnesota winters and winter fun. And I really, really appreciate it. And I again highly recommend that you all read this letter in your packet. It's very cute and thank you.

It. It's.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this bill, Senate File 4662, appropriates money for a memorial to Melissa Hortman at the site of the state Office building. As you know, Melissa was first elected to the State House in 2004 and served with distinction, gaining the respect of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. To her approach to legislating. Served as the minority Leader and then the Assistant Majority Leader before being elected speaker of the House. She's been called as the most consequential speaker in Minnesota's history. An honor that reflects her incredible legislative work, but also reflects her approach to people. Mr. Chair, she built a relationship with everybody, no matter where they were from or which party they belong to. And at a time when too many people let politics and partisanship get in the way, she focused on relationships and connections. And so her legislative legacy isn't unmatched. We should also honor and strive to embrace her approach to relationship building respect and her commitment to people renaming the state office building would help all of us remember and above else. But also I ask for your support on this whole bill. Mr. Chair and members, thank you.

No, Mr. Chair. And I enjoyed doing town halls with her. She made it very clear the position of her against the Senate and I could never get any support from Zach Stevenson in those town halls. But I miss her and I love her. So. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members. Yeah, there's. This has got two stops today. One is here and one is judiciary where the. They'll go through the changes that in judiciary but those changes are incorporated in the amendment. Mr. Chair, if you could have somebody move that.

Chair, if I may. It is a big amendment. It was, it was cleaned up by multiple jury jurisdiction. So I could do, you know go through certainly.

Mr. Chair, members, what you have in front of you is just we it was easier for us to do. It's a delete all amendment but it's all it does is incorporates the changes that we got along the Way from Health and Human Services and also Judiciary. So the changes in here will reflect what we need to change. That'll be in Judiciary in those sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16. You got that in front of you, Mr. Chair?

It's the same size as the first package, Mr. Chair, if you're not allowed.

Olivia, that's fine. I have it here, but it's good. There should be 17 sections, Mr. Chair, that you see in front of you.

And I'd be more than happy to slowly read each one of those sections if you want. I'm kidding.

Chair, members, I will. It's just what it does is it establishes a uniform and statewide license. Sure. System for massage therapy and Asian bodywork therapy. It replaces Minnesota's current patchwork of more than 100 local ordinances with a single statewide framework that improves public safety, supports small business, and reflects the professional standard that's already in place across our state today. Massage therapy is regulated under Minnesota Statute 146A, which governs the complementary and alternative medicine practices. While the statute provides a place in law for massage therapy, it does not. It was not designed for a hands on profession that works directly with patients and clients. As a result, there are several gaps in the public protection Minnesota statute does not establish minimum education or training requirements. And there's no consistent state statewide background check requirement. And the enforcement tools specific to that profession are limited. The current framework largely addresses complaints after harm occurs, rather than establishing those preventive safeguards. In addition, it's regulated through 108 different local ordinances across Minnesota. Each city sets its own rules for training. Each city sets its own rules for licensing fees, its own rules for background checks, and its own rules for enforcement. Screening standards vary differently and if a license is denied or revoked in one city, an individual can simply relocate or practice in another. This creates an enforcement gap and regulatory loopholes are very difficult for local governments to manage. And so, Mr. Chair, you're also seeing the current system has an operations challenges for legitimate providers. Clinics and practitioners that operate in multiple communities may need to maintain multiple city licenses, pay those duplicative fees and comply with different local requirements. That administrative burden limits workforce mobility. And it can restrict access to care, which it Does Senate file 1131 addresses the issues by establishing that consistent state statewide licensure system. It sets a minimum education and training standards and aligns with the national certification expectations with what Minnesota education programs are already teaching today. It also includes there's a five year grandfathering period so current practitioners can just obtain license based on that prior experience. And that ensures the existing workforce and small businesses are not disrupted. Just as important at what the bill does not do, it does not restrict other therapies regulated under chapters 146A. Let me repeat that. It does not restrict other therapies regulated under Chapter 146A, requiring additional schooling for professionals who are already practicing or limit that license to healthcare providers such as physical therapists or chiropractors from performing services within their existing scope of practice. That's a licensure issue, Mr. Chair. Ultimately this bill is about public protection, workforce stability and regulatory modernization. It reduces the administrative burdens on small businesses and brings Minnesota in line with the 46 other states that already have licensed massage therapists. It's not about creating new barriers, Mr.

It's about modernizing the regulation, protecting the public and aligning Minnesota, Minnesota law with the professional standards that already exist. Thank you for letting me say that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members in hidden Judiciary today, there's one small item that they're going to take care of that we can incorporate into the A1. And this is on page 21, line 20 before the word submitting, insert comma, in good faith comma,

Chair, you'll just move both of them together.

And Mr. Chair, with that you'll let, you'll let Judiciary know that. That that's what they were going to fix in Judiciary, that it was actually fixed too. Thank you for doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Hoffman. So just so I'm clear on what we have in front of us. Does this bill provide. I'm just reading the letters in the packet maybe is a better way to enter into this. Does this bill provide the statewide regulatory. I'm going to look for the letter from the League of Minnesota Cities. The statewide registration and licensing of massage therapists. Is that what the A1amendment does?

Chair and Senator McQuade. Yeah, that's been the whole issue from the get go. Is that one city. So if I'm hanging out in Ham Lake and I. And I work for a chiropractor there and I have to pay Ham Lakes licensing and then I go and hang out in Elk river and I have the chiropractor that I'm working for there, then I gotta go get a licensing in Elk River. This just establishes that centralized approach so that there's consistency. So yes,

Thank you, Mr.

And thank you, Senator Hoffman. That gets you the support for the bill. I just wanted to make sure we were doing it because I support that.

All right, any other member questions or comments to the bill. Any testifiers that would like to testify on the bill? All right. Seeing no further discussion center.

Oh, oh, sorry. We did not see them online. There looks like we have a remote testifier. Petra Broken is first on the list. Please state your name on the record and you may begin. And this is a remote.

Petra. Yeah, please.

All right, you may. You may proceed.

Sorry.

Okay.

Thank you for your testimony. Next up, Sean Blodgett that will be joining us remotely. Please state your name for the record and you may begin.

Thank you.

Yeah, my name is Leo B. Cashman. I'm a co founder of Minnesota Natural Health, legally formed project.

Does that help?

I think it's going to come on now.

Thank you. Yes, I also opposed passage of Senate file 1131 and we are seeing the word licensure again. We have been opposed to licensure for massage therapists. And the statute 146A is a Freedom statute and it does have wonderful consumer protection provisions. We would like to see that be the continuing way that massage therapy is licensed, is regulated in our state and we do not need any new form of regulation. The 146A has worked very well over the last 25 years and we think that it is very successful and there's no justification for changing it and picking winners and losers and singling out those who are able to show a certain educational credential as being the favored part of the practitioner community. So I think this is special interest legislation driven by people who would seek to dominate the profession and perhaps over time drive out other practitioners who don't meet the same standards that would be required by the licensure. So I also urge you to reject this bill as being unnecessary. And special interest legislation. Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rachel Romanelli, and I've been a licensed massage therapist for 29 years, holding my license in Washington State. I'm also a nationally certified board massage therapist. In your packets, you will find letters addressing public harm, along with support from the League of Cities and the city of Minneapolis. You will also find testimony from massage therapists and educators and citizens. I also currently serve as the government Relations Chair for the American Massage Therapy Association, Minnesota chapter. So there are just a couple things I want to address here, too, and just give you some context to our state. So there are 45 states that have mandatory licensure. That also includes D.C. so that's where you get the number 46. Minnesota is only one of three states that does not have a mandatory regulation. That's Minnesota, Kansas, and Wyoming. There are two states, California and Vermont, that regulate by an optional licensure or registration. We estimate between our large organizations here that we have approximately 5,000 practitioners that are currently working in Minnesota with 300 to 400 new graduates in our schools every year that are. That are coming out. We've got about 14 programs that are in the state right now that are teaching and educating massage therapists that. That teach at 600 hours or more of education that is aligned with our national standards. Sorry, I'm gonna say that a little bit backwards, but what truly defines Minnesota right now is not our workforce. It is our fragmented system. There are 856 Minnesota cities. Only 108 regulate massage therapy, each with different rules. In some cities, a therapist needs 150 hours of education. In others, there are 600 hours that are required. Some charge no fee at all. So I want to give you a couple of examples of those. In anoka, they require 150 hours of education and a $225 annual fee. In St. Paul, education is required of 500 hours, and annually, it's a $97 individual fee. In North St. Paul, 0 hours and $150 annual fee. In West St. Paul, there are 500 hours of education, and if you're employed, it's an $80 annual fee. And if you're independent, it's $500 at least. In Roseville, it's 600 hours of education and $300 annually. In Brainerd there's no education and no requirement and no fee. In Brooklyn center, there's an annual establishment fee of $3,000 and a $1,500 investigation fee. Their ordinance in sections 23 through 1700 and 23 through 1720, number six, requires that a massage therapist provide evidence in the form of a current certificate from a licensed physician practicing in Minnesota indicating that A, within the past 30 days, the physician has examined the applicant and B, that the examination was for the purpose of determining whether the applicant has any communicable diseases and C, that as a result of that examination, the physician believes that the applicant is not suffering from any communicable diseases that would disqualify them from engaging in the practice of massage. This is not a system grounded in public safety, is a patchwork of inconsistent, outdated and sometimes irrelevant requirements. And most importantly, it does not prevent bad actors. It allows them to move from city to city without accountability. Senate File 1131 prepares to fix this. It creates a statewide framework, one standard, one system, while still allowing local control of businesses. This does not interrupt 146A. This bill is not about adding burden. It is about creating clarity, consistency and accountability. Minnesota has the education. Minnesota has the workforce. We are missing. What we are missing is a framework to protect the public and support the existing profession that serves Minnesotans every day. I respectfully ask for you to support this bill. Thank you. And I will be available for questions.

Yeah.

Thank you. My name is Carrie Burkhart. I live in Senator McCoy's district. I'm a child and adolescent psychiatrist. I am testing in favor of this bill as a person with lived experience. In 2024, while staying at Madden's Resort near Brainerd, I got a massage at the Madden Spa. During that massage, the male massage therapist sexually assaulted me. Massage is a very vulnerable situation. People are naked, drowsy, and may fall asleep, as I often do. My reaction when I realized I was being assaulted was to freeze. While that is a very common reaction in this situation, it also left me was shame and embarrassment. I know from my professional experience that had I been someone with a history of prior sexual abuse, this experience could have triggered a recurrence of ptsd. Or if I was a teenager or young adult, this could have been more emotionally scarring. I have done everything I could to prevent this perpetrator from assaulting anyone else. I reported it to Maddens, who immediately suspended him, but there was nothing to prevent him from going to Grandview or Some other spa. I filed a police report with Cass County Sheriff's Office. Cass county has no massage therapy licensing. As you just heard. Cass county declined to prosecute my case because he denied doing it and there was no tissue or in other words, DNA evidence, which is usually the case with this kind of sexual assault. Even though the perpetrator admitted to the investigator that he had sexually touched multiple women during massages and estimated that four women per week gave him a signal that they wanted sexual touching. As all of you know, most cases of sexual assault are not criminally prosecuted. Criminal prosecution cannot be the primary way we deal with this crime. Crime. I also filed a complaint under Minnesota Statute 146A, which you've been hearing about from other testifiers with the Minnesota Department of Health. The investigator at MDH told me they don't have good tracking of perpetrators who move about the state because the 100 plus jurisdictions do not communicate well with each other. Further, he said sanctions are limited by a law that has no teeth. He told me that Minnesota needs a massage licensing law. In my experience, what we have doesn't work. In the past 35 years, I've been to many male and female massage therapists who were well trained and professional. I have physicians who have recommended massage therapy for me for my medical issues. Massage therapy professionals deserve to have their credentials and safety validated through a state process. The public, prospective employers and massage therapists themselves would all benefit by the posting of a state registration or license. Thank you so much for hearing my story.

Hi, I'm Christine Huber with the American Massage Therapy Association. I manage legislative and regulatory affairs. The AMTA advocates for fair and consistent professional licensing in all 50 states, promotes public education on the efficacy of massage therapy, fosters professional ethics and standards, and supports the advancement of clinical massage therapy research. We represent more than 108,000 members nationwide. Massage therapy is an integral component of the US Healthcare system and is widely recognized as recognized as an effective non pharmacological approach to pain management. A substantial body of clinical research supports its efficacy with endorsements from institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Medicine, and the Joint Commission. Leading health care organizations including Mayo Clinic, Maryland, Anderson Cancer Center, Duke Integrative Medicine, the Cleveland Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering and Cancer center have integrated massage therapy into patient care for a range of medical conditions. Minnesota remains one of only three states without statewide regulation for massage therapy. As a result, many massage therapists in the state must navigate a patchwork of local ordinances, comply with multiple municipal regulations and pay a multitude of fees. This fragmented system creates unnecessary financial burdens, regulatory inconsistencies and confusion for both practitioners and the public. Statewide regulation is essential to ensuring public protection. Professional accountability and uniform standards of practice. Registration would establish a clear scope of practice, set minimum education and training requirements, require background checks for all massage practitioners and create a system to address ethical violations and disciplinary concerns. It would distinguish trained and qualified massage therapy professionals from under unregulated or potentially harmful practices, strengthening consumer confidence and safety. Without massage therapy registration, Minnesota residents lack the consistent protection available in nearly every other state. Public safeguards remain limited as mechanisms are not implemented to address background checks, ethical violations and convictions relevant to the practice of massage therapy and Asian body work. SF 1131 establishes statewide standards that protect consumers and practitioners while expanding access to safe quality care across Minnesota. Establishing massage therapy registration through this bill is a crucial step towards increasing access to non pharmacological care while strengthening public policy and practitioner safety. We remain committed to advocating for the highest professional standards on behalf of massage therapists and the public. And we appreciate your time today.

Thank you Mr.

to the testifier.

Senator McQueen.

Do you know to the testifier.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And before I forget, could we roll call this, please?

My name is Barbara York and I am here again after many years. I've sat next to Senator Hoffman in the past and once again the parties that have opposed massage licensing in the past oppose 1131 and the amendment. Though it may be a registration, it may have all the simple terms that look good on paper. They have consequences that are harmful and they are baby steps to the licensing that is always pursued. These attempts have persisted since 1987. Schools and national groups have always proposed these bills. They will profit from the laws. They have hired lobbyists and received directives and financial support from the national groups. Minnesota practitioners and consumers. All volunteers have opposed this approach and have passed more suitable laws that protect the consumer and practitioner and punish the predators. C License. You know, we talk about the 146A, which is a complementary and alternative health care provider regulation. Chapter 609 punishes the Predators. The legal system failed in protecting her, but there is a law that says a massage therapist who abuses anybody on the table will go to prison. They will be a registered sex offender regardless of what profession they pursue. Interestingly, the schools and national groups that talk about consumer protection did not Support either the 146A and in writing the 609 they did not support penalizing predatory practitioners. State law under 214 requires proof of harm in order to license. It is not to glorify practitioners, but to protect the public. Since 1987, we have had no proof of harm. We. We have had talks about other states, but it's not proof of harm. In Minnesota, the Attorney General is not here showing you proof of harm. The 146A has not given you information about reports of harm from massage therapy. Generally, the reports are about men sexually abusing clients. This is covered already by law and it has been affected. The public is not asking for this. If you look, papers have a tendency to disappear, don't they? I got it here on page four. The limits of practice. All of those limits of practice refer to practices which are licensed and already have penalties for stepping into those arenas doing massage Is not invasive. On page 23 where they talk about municipalities may have business license. They can adopt what Minneapolis did, which we supported. We are not against regulation. We are against limiting this field and raising the prices to consumers. Which is exactly what 214 says we cannot do. President, the law says we cannot do. This is covered. We are considered we as your constituents. We the people of Minnesota. Not the people who come and say they have a license in another state. Doesn't matter if they have a license in another state. It's not covering them here. And so we please ask you to oppose whatever form this is taking taking that it does not meet the statutory requirements at all. It is just a guise to control the market which is seen across the country as not protecting against sex trafficking which is what cities are looking for is protection from that has nothing to do with massage. We are not both. We are massage therapists. Trafficking comes under a whole different field. The Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights have asked for different bills and have been ignored on this. When they have written the book on one on sex trafficking, human trafficking. They asked for something like the business license that Minneapolis did, which is more effective. And the people sitting here saying this were the ones who created the city licenses and created this problem for the people. And then they tell them that will go away. It will not. It'll be required. And the business license. So this will be an additional thing. I have been in practice since 1983. My income supplements my Social Security. I have never harmed anyone. My insurance for business out of my home is only $15 to cover for the business.

This hurts the practitioners. It costs money. It costs a lot of educational issues that they have not needed. A massage therapist does not harm. Our field does not harm. There's no proof. Please oppose this.

Am. And members reminded this bill will be laid over any questions or comments from members. Senator Barr.

Senator Hoffman. Mr.

Senator Barr.

Senator Barr.

Senator Hoffman, Mr.

Gotcha. Thank you. And then Senator Barr. Thank you, Mr.

On page three, 324 is the line number approved credentialing examinations under the duties of commissioner. Are you laying out any framework for that or just leaving it to the commissioner to decide what to be examined?

Chair and Senator Barr. There's going to be that. Counsel, if you look at the, the establishment of a council just like you have the, you know, you go get a haircut, you got a cosmetologist that's cutting your hair, that's a licensed, you know, haircutter. They're, they're driven by the board of cosmetology. In this case there's going to be this council that's going to establish those. There still has to be some rules and establishment after that. So that, that puts the system in

Cal Sonar Barr.

Senator Barr.

Senator Hoffman Mr.

to trigger you there man.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

but we're basically to approved credentialing examination that's basically basically turning it over to them where it would it would get out of control pretty fast. I can see having watched government get how easy government gets out of control and then I'm just going to close with a couple of quick comments to the last testifier. This is exactly what this is as a fencing bill. I get that we have different fees or different registrations in different cities and if there's one that's extremely, extremely onerous you're not going to see a plethora of massage therapists working in that area where it's and just so you know I have used multiple massage therapists. I've had some that I just didn't like their technique and I've got others that you go in and it you end up falling asleep and you walk out like did I even get a massage? It's kind of you have to almost shop around a little bit to find find something that you're somebody you're comfortable with. So when we start putting all these regulations pretty soon we start taking away the ability of the massage therapist to you when you get the examination you're going to be this is exactly your exact procedures. When I walk in it's like I have certain parts I have a leg that I have a problem with and it's all muscular so I need a deep massage, deep tissue massage in that leg but then other parts I just need to get what do you call untightened up or whatever. I don't know what the technical terms are for it but the ones that the massage therapists that there's two of them that I've actually settled on is doing a pretty good job but they've dialed in exactly what I need, where I want, how I want and when I've used other ones it's like I'm not going back. But when you end up this bill takes away a lot of the freedom of choice by putting everybody in the same box and we remove a lot of the individuality from the individuals. And I mean we're not voting on this today because it's being laid over. But I would, I am not in favor of fencing to start with. And I don't think this is exactly, there's too many types of Asian massage to begin with. I mean there's a, an entirely every country has a little bit different massage and it just says Asian massage as a whole. There's a lot of technicalities I think that are not being addressed in here that either should be addressed or shouldn't be addressed at all and kind of clarify some of this. If it's just a matter of you want a registration fee, statewide statute or statewide rules on that, this bill should be a whole lot smaller the what it is today. So thank, with that. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I'll just remind the committee that I think our jurisdiction on this bill is the Advisory council on page 23 and then page 24. And so Senator Hoffman, I appreciate you bringing the bill. I think, you know, I can't imagine, I don't, I can't think of any other profession in Minnesota where you are touching, where a stranger is touching you and you are potentially naked that we don't regulate in some way and you know, we are late to human services and that is certainly I was going to look at you gabbling right professions that also, you know, deal with intimate natures and we regulate and license there as well. So I think this is a good bill and I think the Advisory Council is a good way to be sure that we have the right folks at the table advising the commissioner to make sure that we're, we're looking at the, you know, looking at the right things as we so thank you for bringing this bill and I'll be supporting it when it comes up for a vote eventually.

thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just echo really a lot of what Senator Barr had to say. I'm looking so I'm looking at page seven of the bills. Senator HOFFMAN I mean we're requiring a student to get 2 million to $6 million in insurance coverage. That's a student in the bill. I mean this is not only a fencing bill, it's, it's, it's higher than an eight, eight foot deer fence. Senator HOFFMAN and so I mean, I mean I, I voted probably against every fencing bill that's come before the legislature, but this one's really a high fence. So it. I mean, if you want to get a bill through, maybe make the fence just a little bit shorter. Thank you, Mr.

Seeing that, senator Hoffman, the final word.

Thank you. See no further discuss Discussion Center, File 1717, as amended, is laid over. Next up, we have senator Johnson Stewart, Sen. File 4660. I think she will be joining us remotely. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Whenever you are ready, senator. You may begin.

Thank you, Mr.

I have two bills that were brought to me from hennepin county, and they both relate to the medical examiner's office. The very first one, SF4660, relates to the membership of the medical examiner board. County boards in Minnesota have the authority to select and appoint a medical examiner except in hennepin county. By law, the hennepin county board must empanel a separate medical examiner board to evaluate and recommend applicants for appointment. The membership of the medical examiner board includes people with specialized training and knowledge who are uniquely positioned within the medical inference of community. The problem that this bill seeks to remedy is that the existing language mandates that the panel be filled with professional organizations that no longer exist, such as the Minnesota society of pathologists. So this proposed language specific to selection of the hennepin county medical examiner updates the board membership to include organizations that that do exist and specifies that it include qualified representatives from the university of Minnesota medical school, hennepin healthcare and the medical examiner's office. So it's simply updating language that no longer applies.

Mr.

Thank you for the testimony. Members, any questions or comments to the bill? Seeing none. Senator johnson Stewart, any closing remarks for us? No, thank you.

Certainly. Seeing no further discussion, Senator johnson stewart moved. Senate File 4660 to be recommended to pass and to be placed on general orders. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The motion prevails. Senate File 4660 is recommended to pass and refer to general orders. Next up, senator johnson Stewart. Senate file 4660.

Thank you. Senator Johnson Stewart. Mr. Wilson, welcome again. You may please state your name from the record. You may be. You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for that. Members, any questions or comments? Senator Draskowski.

Director Wilson?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Just wondering if you could explain a little more what you mean by recovering reasonable expenses. Expenses like from who? And how is it like keeping a five dollar bill that you find that's on, that happens to be on the person, or what exactly do you mean by that statement you made, Director Wilson?

Thank you. Members, any other questions or comments? Seeing no further discussion, Senator Johnson Stewart moves Center file 4661 to be recommended to pass and referred to Judiciary. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The motion passes. 10. File 4661 is recommended to pass and referred to Judiciary. Thank you, Mr. Director Wilson. And looks like Senator Kupek will be joining us for Senate file 4640.

Good morning.

I do. I have an A1 authors amendment.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Senator Kupak. Members, any questions or comments? Senator BARR thank you, Mr.

And this is one of those bills where you wish there was a whole lot more boxes to put co authors on because I think you'd have every member of the legislature signing onto this. I like the fact that you've included not just the grants managers but also legislators in this. The one year moratorium is probably long enough. Legislators might, might need a little longer time. But as far as grant managers, a year is good. I appreciate you bringing this forward. I was in the OLA presentation when the, when the OLA presented this and I, I'm glad you picked up the ball and ran with it. Thank you. Great bill.

Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate the intent of this bill as well. I do think, I like the narrow kind of focus, like right in the beginning about the former legislator, very actionable consequence kind of thing. My concern comes with, I was just thinking about the Department of Health.

So the Department of Health deals with a lot of grants. They deal indirectly with grants, you know, with counties, with other kind of entities. And they went through a sweeping cut of federal cuts last year. A lot of them lost their job. So I would be concerned that if, I'm concerned that this might be overly broad in that if people are getting laid off from their job and they were indirectly involved, like what does that do for their job in the future? So kind of like could just maybe address that a little bit or maybe Talk about like define business entity.

Sure. And I know this is kind of the first stop of this. We've got several stops going forward and I do, you know, I am concerned. I don't want to also sweep in anybody who's maybe at a lower level position. Position. You know, clearly, I think the problems we have seen, particularly in dhs, I think it's an administrative problem and the higher ups who administer these grants and oversee those employees, I think that's really where the problem has been. And you're right. If somebody at a lower level who just happened to, you know, do some kind of clerical work on a bill and then say they got laid off for some reason or something happened and then they found another job, you would not want to preclude them from doing that. So I'm happy to make some tweaks going forward. I know we've got several committee stops

Thank you, Mr.

And Senator Kubik, I think we will in one of your next stops we'll get the comparison of cell 3900 and you know, enhance it with keeping the same focus. But I don't believe that you're current bill limits employment. It just limits employment in a particular business in which you've participated materially in awarding a grant or the evaluation to me or creation of the grant content. And so that industry is large enough that they have plenty of options to go out and seek employment, just not one that they had a financial or an impact on a grant program. So I think it's not limiting. It limits them to the businesses which are mostly nonprofits in that world that are, that they materially awarded them dollars. So I don't think it limits them. It's a good bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kupak, good bill. You know, I sit on the Legislative Audit Commission with Senator, Senators Barr and Senator Curran. We did hear this audit. Very, very troubling. We've also seen legislators involved in writing bills that extend money to people that they know and there is certainly the potential for them to eventually be employed there as well. So I appreciate the angle. I think it's a little bit weak on the terms though. So I've got a, a couple of amendments. Senator Kupik, if you would entertain them, I guess I'll offer them and see what your response is. The first one is to take the years that the legislature may not accept employment with the employer and take it from 12 months to five years. And so we would have to amend line 1.10, line 2.23, line 2.9 and line 3.1. And council, maybe there's other lines if I have missed them or maybe I can throw them and maybe I can throw it in one amendment. Mr. Chair, the second part of the amendment would. And I like the penalty for violation that you have on page three of the bill. I think that's also an excellent angle. I would like to extend though the amount where an employee who violates this section is precluded from receiving a straight state grant for a period of 12 months and strike 12 months and insert 10 years. And that would be my amendment, Mr. Chair.

years for the violation.

So Senator Draskowski and Mr. Chair, just to make it clear. So we are extending the five years on the legislators, Are we also extending it to five years on the employees?

Right, 10 years on the employer. But on the other part, when you were adding it, I think you said at the beginning five years, Was that just on elected officials or was that also for state employees?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your clarity on that. Senator Kupek. Because I didn't read that part on 2.9. So I circled and do intend to take 12 months to 5 years. Also on the employee section on page 2, Mr. Chair, so the parts with employment from either a legislator or former state employees would be five years. And the employee, the employer part on page three would be 10 years.

Madam Chairmember, Senator Jaskowski, proposal is on page one, line 10, delete 12 months and insert five years. On page two, line nine, delete 12 months and insert five Years. On page two, line 23, delete 12 months and insert five YEARS. On page 3.2, insert or delete 12 months and insert five YEARs. And then on line three, 3.7, delete 12 months and insert 10 years.

No, that represents the amendment, Mr. Chair. And I'd encourage discussion and encourage your support. I think 12 months is way too short. I think we need to make it something that is a. That is a barrier to fraud. And 12 months is a small barrier to fraud. But the public can't accept legislators and employees of the state doing what happened with the Behavioral Health Administration. And we can't be giving grants to employers who violate this as well. Part of me, Senator Kupek and members would be, would like to see many of these be forever. But I think five and ten years is reasonable.

Sure. And thank you. Thank you, Senator Driskowski, because I share those same sentiments and I think I am certainly fine with the five years on elected officials. I am maybe hesitant on the five years on state employees just because I'm not sure, I'm not quite sure how that in my mind just trying to figure out how that plays out because I can't see if you know people who they administered grants and that's kind of the qualified area. I don't know what that timeframe exactly is. I mean if you left and you went oh I got a job as a consultant, you left to start a consultant business and then you happen to do pick up somebody in the past, I'm not, I can see where 12 months is too short, but it's five years too long I guess would be the question. And then I'm certainly open to the ten year idea. And again I think maybe the penalty for violation, 12 months might be too short. I'm not just sure what some of the ramifications are for 10 years, but I'm definitely, I'm comfortable with the five on legislators elected. I'm, I'm pretty good I think with the 10 on the, the on subdivision three. And then it's just maybe the, the state employee part that I made. I'm not sure where I, how five is and I'd be, I would be curious to hear what other members thoughts are on that as this come up. So I like a discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think, Senator Dzkowski, I like the additional element of the nonprofit themselves. So create the disincentives on both sides of that transaction or that opportunity. I don't know if 10 years is the number, but I think we can, we got a couple stops left here that we can figure that out. But I do like the, to discourage one, the job offer and two, the person that would be willing to accept it and have a consequence because we're talking about those that have actual real material, direct relationships of how they've been funded. And we've had so many people that we still have to come up with the solution that the friends and family plan for the direct appropriations, you know, this doesn't cover that and it's kind of hidden under the, the guys that this is a competitive grant process with it all occupied by friends and family and the industry. So I like it. We can argue about or debate about the time, but I don't think 10 years would be too long from a business perspective to set a clear expectation that no legislator or not a legislator and, or anybody participate in that process, that they should have a consequence if they break that process. And in 10 years they'd have to go out and figure out a way to fund their own activities outside of us. I like it. I think it's worthy of consideration. And maybe we can refine the periods as the time moves on or as the bill moves on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I promise to be brief, but I would encourage members of the committee to go ahead and accept the amendment. The author seems to be open to it. And you have a couple more committee stops. If it turns out that 10 is just a little too much and seven and a half seems a little better, we got a couple more committee stops to adjust that back down. And let's, let's go over a little, a little extra onerous here and dial down if we need to at the next committee.

Sure, sure. Thank you members for the thoughtful discussion on this. And as long as, you know, if we take this and put it on and then have discussion and you know, we find out maybe there is, as Senator Barr said, maybe it's seven and a half, that there's some magic number that is better. If we're willing to just adjust to that, then I am happy to take this amendment and put it on here today. Thank you. Thanks for a really good discussion on this, Senator Draskowski.

Chair.

Certainly. Would you like to make a motion? Senator Draskowski?

Chair, you made the motion to.

Mr. Chair. I move that Senate file 4640 be recommended to pass and referred to Labor Committee.

Mr.

Thank you, Senator Draskowski. Senator Draskowski moves Senate Fowl 4640 as amended to be recommended to pass and refer to labor. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. The motion passes. And Senate file 4640 as recommend as amended to be rec. Is recommended to pass and refer to labor. Thank you, Senator Kupek, for the bill. Thank you, members.

Yes. And then next up we have Senator Pa with Senate file. Sorry, we're kind of jumping back and back and forth on the agenda here. But Senate file 4736. I guess I'll sign in too, whenever you get a chance.

And then Senator Duckworth will be following the this bill presentation. Senator, Pod to your bill. Now it looks like you have an amendment.

Senator Gustafson moves the A13amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The amendment is adopted. Senator Pa.

certainly. Thank you. The first testifier, Pang Yang. Please state your name for the record. And you may begin.

Thank you. Next up, Dr. Ka Yang. Please state your name for the record and you may begin.

Thank you for the testimony, members. Any questions or comments? Senator Barr?

Chair.

Senator Fateh, thank you so much, Mr.

And thank you so much, Senator Paul, for bringing this legislation forward.

Me and Senator Zhuang always have conversations about our different cultures and things like that. And I had a question for you very briefly. Can you explain to us the difference between white Hmong and green Hmong? Senator Pate, Senator Pat, you take that

So can I add to that that 90% of the language is the same, but it's just that small, that small difference.

All right, Senator Pa, Any final words?

to passing it this year, seeing no further discussion. Sir, file 4736 is laid over for possible inclusion. Next up, we have Senator Duckworth with Senate file. Oh, sorry. See set of File 4736 is laid over. Senate File 4736, as amended, is laid over for possible inclusion. Senator Duckworth, welcome to State and Local Government committee. Senate file 4515. Whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Chair.

All right. Senator Barr moves the A1amendment. All those in favor say aye. All opposing? No. The amendment is adopted. Senator Duckworth.

Chair.

Thank you, Senator Duckworth. And looks like we have a testifier, Rachel Jenner.

Ms. All right, certainly. Thank you for that. Members, any questions or comments to the bill? Senator Barr?

Certainly. Any other member questions or comments? Senator Koran?

So thank you and members. The amendment is being passed out right now. Any other questions or comments? The final word, Senator Duckworth?

none, Mr.

I won't push my luck.

Just a reminder, obviously your decision, but would love to see it move to

It's. It's teed up in the House as well.

Mr. Chair, I move that get my right file number here. Senate File 4515 has met it be moved to general orders.

In the past moved to general orders.

adjust the motion. Then Recommend Senate File 4515 as amended, be recommended to pass and move to Commerce.

And it.

Yes, Mr.

Mr.

All right, thank you, Senator Duckworth. Members, any questions or comments to this bill? With that see no further discussion. Senator Karan moves that Senate File 2061 is to be recommended to pass and to be placed on general orders, all in Favor say aye.

All opposed say no. The motion prevails. Senate File 2061 is recommended to plan to pass and paste placed on general orders. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.

And then next up, we have Senator weber, Senate File 4749. Senator Weber, thank you for joining us today. Whenever you're ready, you may. You may begin.

Okay, no problem. Was it the. We don't have the amendment with us yet.

Is it being sent over? Sorry. As we're digging up. Would you like to go? Sure. I go through your bill.

The bill itself, Senate File 4749, establishes a task force on housing taxes and fees. Basically, we have spent. We spend significant time in this capital talking about the cost of housing. And today we also recognize there's a shortage of housing and there is a high cost of housing. And while we oftentimes consider and talk about the hard costs, such as lumber, labor, land, we have less information on the soft costs, the permitting cost, the amount of exactions from different units of government for a development to occur. And so basically what this bill does is establishes a task force made up of 16 members from a variety of positions, including members of the legislature, including. Including members of different state agencies and those groups that are involved in housing, and gives them a timeline with a sunset on this committee to basically go ahead and research these costs to help us understand the costs across the state of Minnesota. It's one of those things. I don't expect them to have a listing of every city of every county that we have in the state of Minnesota, but as you go about from southwest to southeast to metro, at least provide some general parameters about what these costs are and what is raising the cost of our individual lots. And so the purpose here is for this task force is to help fill the vacuum with the lack of. The vacuum of. Lack of knowledge that we have regarding this particular issue. And as it relates to the Amendment that. The A4amendment, basically, Mr. Chair and members, it concerns certain wording changes that members of the housing committee recommended. Make sure that the phrasing is the same in the different areas. And. And with that, Mr. Chair, I will stop and open it up for any questions that you may have.

Sure, I'll start. Mr.

Senator Weber, thank you for the bill. I like the task force sunset at the end subdivision eight, and you've given them a reasonable but truncated timeline to send their report. And you have included pretty much everybody in here, but not over so overbearing that it can't function. You've got minority, majority. You've got housing, you've got the governor, you've got tribes, nonprofits, you've included some of everybody. So you should get a very good report out of this. And I especially like subdivision six. I think. You know what that one is, right?

Yeah.

I really like that. It encourages them, get that get in, get their work done because they have better, better things to do or other things to do with their time. And I think we will actually glean some usable information out of this report. In the end, just exactly, it'll dial in to a lot of why our housing. You can look around, we all have anecdotal stories about it costs this much to build this many square foot in this town or this state. And we could, we'll be able to have real hard data that we can start comparing not just like Minneapolis to the suburb or to Worthington, but we'll also be able to use that data in comparing state to state and start dialing in of why we can't build a starter home in the state anymore. So thank you for the bill.

Thank you, Mr.

Senator Weber.

I think we all battle more commissions, more task forces, but I think more than anything the education piece of it. But every element that goes in, we're talking about a pretty broad spectrum. Right. We've added more costs to that. Just building a home, which cumulative value is right in the total cost of living and operating just in home ownership. But do you see this going through? Because actually Department of Labor and Industry, they've had the greatest impact on building a home from the wage theft laws. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the rights and responsibilities of a contractor to now be responsible for the business acumen of not the product of their subs, but the business acumen in compliance with all other administration or business laws in the state or the country. It's a myriad of legislative inputs that don't exist in most other states. Do you envision this task force being able to highlight every single element and to scour it from the regulatory environment to the composition, how we calculate tax, your role, your share in tax mandated infrastructure. I see some of that listed right. Parks and those things. In every development we sat in, was it six, eight years, six, seven years ago? I think we had a workforce that operated all summer on affordable, naturally occurring, affordable housing. We sat in a Lake Elmo, better known as North Woodbury, and walked to $100,000 in costs that didn't add any value to, and that was to every single property from the regulatory perspective. Window clips to mandatory tree fees, mandatory park fees in addition to building a park. Do you see this taking the most comprehensive view of every one of those elements that comprise building a house in Minnesota. And then the comparative analysis of why is it 80 to $150,000 cheaper to build it in a neighboring state like Wisconsin, who isn't a low cost state, by the way? They're just a hell of a lot lower than we are. Do you anticipate this new commission going through every element of what comprises that total cost of ownership, including property taxes?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Koran. I anticipate that this task force is going to bring those issues forward. Are they going to have the time to do an in depth analysis of every element? Because as you mentioned, the myriad of rules and requirements that are out there is substantial. And I don't know that they'll have the time to actually go ahead and come up with a solution for each of those particular issues. But I think what the legislature needs, and I can say this because quite frankly, I'm not going to be here, what the legislature needs is the basic information to say, hey, these are the problems that we have created over the years. And then it will allow the respective committees that deal with those particular issues to take that information and say, okay, how do we solve the problem?

Mr.

you, Senator Weiber, because I do believe even inventorying, right. The task of just inventorying the cost elements of home ownership, from the construction of it to ownership to the correlation of the additional cause of the holistic property tax aspect of it. That's a big list. Gonna take many people to figure that out. But as you mentioned, Senator Weber, you also won't be here next year.

And I don't know for the public and members, but they all have a permanent smile on their faces when they announce on their way out. And so we appreciate yours, Mr. Weber. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, the amendment. First of all, I forgot to send it to Mikayla, so that's why you don't have it. But also I am noticing that the page and lines on it are probably from an earlier version. But I think we can still do it with one second for me to update the page and lines.

so on page 2, line 9 after and insert related. On page 2, line 10 after the first occurrence of fees and that comma, after the first fees, insert comma extractions comma. Page two, line 12 after final market, insert net cost. And on page two, line 13, delete everything before the semicolon. And then on page two, line 14, delete evidence, evaluate and insert, analyze.

Mr. Chair, did we move the amendment?

Okay, when it gets time for that, I did have one suggestion that you please consider as we. Are we going to general orders with this or is it going. Where's this going?

This one is going to taxes.

Senator Weber.

Chair.

All right, thank you. Senator Barr.

Yep.

All right. Senator Barr moves the oral amendment. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr. Chair and Senator may quate I believe that those type of things are indeed under the purview of this task force. All the exactions that different taxing authorities or governing authorities place on the development.

Thank you, Mr.

And thank you, Senator Weber.

Thank you Chair and thank you Committee. Committee I bring You Senate File 3959 which makes targeted practical updates to strengthen Minnesota's address confidentiality program, which is called Safe at Home. Safe at Home better protects participants who rely on so the changes better protect participants who rely on the services for their safety. To make sure that we're all grounded for the public on what Safe at Home is, it helps people who fear for their safety, often folks who are struggling, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, but also those with professional safety concerns, keep their real address confidential. Participants are given a PO Box to use as their legal address, which must be accepted by public and private entities so they don't have to disclose where they live. The program forwards participants first class mail and accepts service of private process on their behalf while securely protecting their actual address. So just a quick story of where this bill has been. So we started out in judiciary and public safety, moved on to transportation and now we're here today where primarily in your jurisdiction is sections 1, 2, 5 and 6, though you could probably argue the whole thing is yours. It's co authored in the other body by Representative Nash, who constituent of his shares a story of how these changes will benefit her. And that's what this does. It clarifies gap in current law defining who may act as a guardian when enrolling a minor and ensuring emancipated minors can apply independently. It also codifies staff practice of requiring documentation of guardianship to promote consistency and accountability. This bill strengthens protection around disclosure of a participant's physical address by requiring written judicial findings, notifying the Office of the Secretary of State when such findings are made and allowing time for review or intervention before the disclosure takes effect. It also enhances penalties for harmful disclosures, adds anti discriminant discrimination protections for participants and improves state agency coordination requiring agencies to designate a Safe at home point contact. Finally, it reduces barriers for participants by allowing Safe at home cards to be used as a proof of residency for driver's license and real IDs. And it requires judicial training to reinforce the seriousness of these protections. These are straightforward updates that ensure that the program remains clear, clear, consistent and effective for those who depend on it. And I have staff from the secretary of state's office with me to answer questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you for the bill. Senator Clark, I really have a great, great appreciation for this program. It was actually developed in my tenure when I came here. I don't remember what year it was, but it was a long time ago and it's still going. The one concern I have is that it gets bigger than it needs to be. The concern that I have is that it needs to maintain its integrity and covering the people that it needs to cover. And the one question that just popped into my head is, you know, I think about the area of stocking and some other things. Do we. Do we have any guardrails? Or have you thought about. Or has a secretary of state thought about. You have people. Is there people who have mental health issues who may think they're being stocked and aren't really being stocked? I don't know how to express it any better than that. Is there. Are there any elements of discussion happening around that to make certain that we don't suddenly see a growth in this area, maybe that it doesn't need to grow? I don't. My concern is that it gets too big and loses its integrity.

Hello.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Draskowski.

Thank you, Chair Zhang. And Senator, I unfortunately can't speak to what might happen in those staff interactions. I know that like I said, there is an extensive process that folks go through as they are having those conversations with application assistants. Those application assistants are folks that are outside of our office. They're in all 87 counties. And so those are the folks that

having those conversations. And I think if they're meeting the requirements of, you know, if they're an eligible person and if they're meeting the other requirements, they would be allowed into the system. I'd be happy to follow up with you offline though.

Thank you for that. And members, any other questions or comments? Final word, Senator Clark.

And as Senator Drazkowski noted, this is an important program that has, that really makes sure that we are doing what the title of this is helping people stay. Stay safe at home. So thank you for your support.

Aye.

Sa.