March 24, 2026 · State and Local Government · 15,649 words · 25 speakers · 266 segments
Foreign. 2026. And the time is 1106. Senate file 3854. Senator Mann, welcome to the State and local Government Committee. Whenever you're ready, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Senate File 3854 will allow MMB more flexibility when contracting for prescription drug benefits and pharmacy benefit management services for purposes of benefit for state employees. I will Talk about it, Mr.
Chair.
Hello, Mr. Benshoof. Whenever you're ready, please state your name for the record. And you may begin.
Mr.
Chair. Committee members, I'm Galen Benshoof, Enterprise Director for Employee Insurance at mmb, where I oversee the CGIT program. Thank you to Senator Mann for carrying this important bill. I'm going to start my remarks today with a little bit of historical context. The original law modified by this bill was enacted five years ago. In terms of the pharmacy benefit industry, five years is a lifetime. That original law required MMB to procure pharmacy benefit management services through what's called a reverse auction with abnormally prescriptive technical parameters. We've now been through that reverse auction. Other states have been through it as well, and unfortunately, it's not lived up to the promises as required by the original law. Last year, MMB conducted an evaluation of that reverse auction, which to our understanding, is the most rigorous analysis across the country on the process. Our evaluation found that there was not evidence of savings attributable to the reverse auction. The OLA reviewed our analysis and affirmed that finding. The bill before you today is incredibly simple. It says that if the evidence from last year's evaluation was inconclusive, then MMB is not obligated to follow that same process for our next procurement. We've learned in recent years that many PBMs have decided to not bother with reverse auctions, especially smaller and more transparent companies, to make sure we had up to date information. Earlier this year, MMB issued a request for information RFI and asked PBMs if they would submit a bid if we did another reverse auction. Concerningly, less than half of respondents said yes. Members, there's too much at stake to limit competition for the state's business in such an important area. There's too much at stake to continue to prescribe a procurement process that may not save us any money. Considering the changes in the pharmacy industry and the rapid cost increases in that space. We need every tool in our toolbox to drive value for taxpayers and for CGIP members. We deeply appreciate support for this bill from many labor union partners. As you'll see in the letter in your packet. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee members, for your consideration.
Thank you. Members, any questions or comments to the bill? I know we've had this bill run through here before. Seeing none. Senator Mann, any final words or comments with that? See no further discussion. Senate File 3854 is laid over for possible inclusion. Thank you, Senator Mann. Next up, we have. I think members are still presenting in other committees.
Yeah.
I will pass off the gavel to Senator McQuade, and then I will present.
All right.
Senate file 4625. Senator Zhang, when you're ready. Senator Zhang, would you first like to move the A2amendment?
Thank you. Senator McQueen. I would like to move the A2amendment.
Senator Zhang moves the A2amendment. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed? The amendment is adopted. Senator John does. Senate file 4625, as amended.
Yeah. Thank you, committee members. Senate file 4625 is a bill that proposes amendments to Minnesota Statute 3, 8 3, a section that pertains to the administration of Ramsey County. The county is seeking to amend parts of 383A that governs human resources administration. This bill would streamline and update language that is outdated and obsolete. It would make changes that would enable Ramsey county to update internal policies, align organizational structures, and operate in a way that reflects modern public sector management. The Ramsey County Attorney's Office has closely reviewed all the proposed revisions and finds that there are consistent. Consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 375, which governs the administration of counties statewide and does not impact labor contracts or any positions represented by unions. Testifying in support of this bill is Deputy County Manager and Chief Operating Officer Alexander Kotze.
Ms. Kotze, please introduce yourself for the record. Welcome to the committee. You may begin.
Thank you. Madam Chair and committee members, my name is. My name is Alexandra Kutza. I am the Chief Operating Officer for Ramsey county. And I appreciate Senator Zhang for carrying this bill and for all of you for hearing the bill today. So, as was mentioned, Minnesota Statute 383A includes detailed requirements for Ramsey County Human Resources Department. Some of the language is outdated, making it administratively burdensome for the organization to update internal policies and to realign our organizational structures to improve efficiency for Ramsey county. Updating Minnesota Statute 383A is about making sure that the county's governing statute reflects how it operates today, including titles and roles. Ramsey county has recently undertaken major efforts to realign organizational structures, streamline processes, clarify authority, reduce legal ambiguity, and better position the county to respond to Community needs. I want to point out that there is no union impacts as a result of this bill and our requested changes to 383 will enable the county to move this work forward while maintaining transparency and accountability. That is all I have prepared today, but I'm happy to answer any questions about specific sections.
Thank you Ms. Kudza. Members Questions? Okay, seeing no further Discussion, Senate File 4625 is laid over for possible inclusion. Thank you Senator Zhang. Thank you. Senate File 4625 as Amanda is laid over for possible inclusion.
All right, next up we have Senate file 4548. Senator Housechild, see here. Senator Housile will be joining us via Zoom remotely. There is Senator Housechild. Senator, whenever you are ready to go, you may proceed with the presentation of your bill.
Thank you Chair Zhang and Members, appreciate you hearing Senate file 4548. Before I begin, I do have an author's amendment that will get the bill in the shape I'd like it to. An amendment that simply removes watershed district managers.
Certainly. Senator Swatzinski moves the A1amendment. Members, you should have that in your packet. All those in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The amendment is adopted. Senator Housechild to your bill as amended.
Thank you Chair. This legislation comes from direct experience in Hermantown and St. Louis county surrounding a possible data center development project. In many cases throughout our state's history, local elected officials have been asked to sign non disclosure agreements when it comes to large economic development projects in their region. While this has traditionally gone without much concern, the experience around data center development in Hermantown and elsewhere has shown a need for better transparency. I've heard from constituents who feel they deserve to understand better the full scope of a possible data center development and that their elected officials should be allowed to discuss those issues with their constituents without a non disclosure agreement in place. I've also heard from local elected officials themselves in the region who have signed these non disclosure agreements in order to stay competitive with other counties and local governments for economic development opportunities who have since regretted that decision based on what has occurred in our region. The lessons we've learned in the experience in Hermantown is that local elected officials should not be beholden to non disclosure agreements as they are elected by the voters and those voters deserve to have a transparent conversation with their elected officials. That's the purpose of this legislation and I do have a testifier from St. Louis county who would like to share her experience. Thank you for the consideration.
Certainly we have on the testifier list is Annie Harala. Please state your name for the record and you may begin.
Thank you very much.
Can you hear me?
Yes, thank you very much. Chair and members of the My name is Annie Harala. I am a county commissioner from St. Louis County. I'm elected by the city of Duluth, but serve St. Louis county, which is Duluth all the way up to the Canadian border, as you know. And I'm here today because I've lived the very problem this legislation is seeking to solve two years ago on a light industrial. And I believed it was my due diligence seeking information on a potential development for my region. You know, we are always looking for ways to diversify our economy instead of having to come to the legislature or raise taxes locally. And so thought it was an opportunity to do that. I worked closely with our legal department to ensure I remained in compliance with every statute possible. I checked every box. But I've learned a hard and necessary lesson that I hope other folks don't have to make it, don't have to learn the hard way in the future. And just because the action that I made of signing a non disclosure agreement was legal does not mean it was right and it wasn't right for my communities. And I heard that loud and clear. The law may have permitted that signature, but the signature itself created a wall between me and the people that I represent. It created a shadow where there could have been sunlight. And my constituents reached out, some frustrated, some really supportive on all different areas. But the piece, the continued conversation I keep thinking back to is an email from a family friend I had growing up that said, hey Annie, we trust you. We are really hurt by this. Can you help us understand? And we had dialogue back and forth. And it brought me to a spot to think about where our government is in people feeling like they trust us or not. And so I think a statewide response to this would be incredibly supportive because our constituents shouldn't have to wonder what their representatives are discussing behind closed doors, especially when it concerns the future of our land, water and our local economy. And we're told they're a necessary tool for economic development. But for an elected official, we should have a higher barrier. An NDA is a barrier that takes our most fundamental job of accountability away. So I have apologized directly to my community. I've committed to never signing another NDA. But personal apologies don't fix systemic flaws. So we need a legislative solution at a statewide level, not a patchwork county by county. No local official again should be put in this position. Again, where a private contract is used to muzzle their duty as a public official. So we take our oath of office. We trade the right of private deals for the privilege of public trust. And at a time when people are so worried about it, we have to continue investing in that. And I want to share that as this learning lesson with you to know why I'm so supportive of this legislative change. I really urge you to please support this bill. Let's ensure that community development actually involves the community. Let's choose integrity over transparency over the technicality of a legal loophole. I thank Senator Hochschild for authoring this bill and again, thank you to the chair in this committee for hearing my testimony. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner, for sharing your experience with us. Next up, we have Mr. Sorry here a testifier. The next testifier from Farmington, Mr. Gary Johnson.
Hello.
Welcome to the State and Local Government Committee. Please state your name for the record and you may begin.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning. I am Gary Johnson from Farmington. I am in favor of transparency and giving the public the right to know what is being planned in their communities. I do, however, have major concerns with the language of the Senate version of this bill as compared to the legislature's similar NDA bill. By limiting the signing of NDAs to only elected officials and omitting other non elected government staff, the bill will not stop the ongoing secrecy surrounding the development happening in our state today. This secrecy denies the public their rights to know what is proposed in their communities and diminishes trust in elected officials. In Farmington, a developer approached the city with a proposal for a large data center project and required that an NDA be signed before discussions could begin. It wasn't the city's elected officials signing the NDA. It was the city's planner and economic development director. Thus began the secret planning of the project for approximately seven months prior to any public knowledge or input. During this time of secret planning, the City Council was updated and even though they had not signed an NDA, they felt obligated to keep the secret. I believe they kept quiet out of respect for their staff and not wanting them to be taken to court for violating the NDA. Only limited public notice was given before the first public meeting and the goal of rushing ahead to get the final approval of the project completed before the community had a chance to figure out what was happening and any potential impact. The community felt frustrated that the elected officials would do this without open ears to hear their concerns. One council member made the statement that it was the most opaque process he had ever seen. And the developer got everything they wanted. Not only did this happen in Farmington, but in our local community of Hampton. The City Council and mayor were afraid to sign an NDA because of fear of the law. They had their city clerk sign an NDA and the secrecy process went underway with the City Clerk's signature. Throughout the state, there are data center projects being promised and most of them resulting in public outcries about the secrecy concerning the projects. With new announcements coming regularly, I am sure NDAs will be requested of local officials. This is a template which has emerged nationally. If you truly want to prevent secrecy, you need to include all local government officials and staff from signing an NDA. This is the only way the public can have any say in their community and maintain any trust in government. After all, elected officials work for the people who voted them into office. Thanks for listening to my concerns.
Thank you for the testifier. Are there any other testifiers that would like to talk on this topic? Other than that, we will go to members for questions or comments to the bill. Senator McQueen, thank you, Mr.
Chair and Senator Hochschild, thanks for bringing the bill and having really good conversations during the interim and the session about it as well. You know, Mr. Johnson actually kind of outlined the concerns that I have with this bill. You know, in a city like Apple Valley, I love it. I've lived there my whole life. But we have a really part time mayor and city council. And so we know our city administrator and our city Community Development Manager do so much of the work, the day to day work. And what I worry about with your bill is that we set up a two tiered system of information where the people who are elected and, you know, accessible to people don't have the information that the people who aren't elected do. And so I'm wondering if you would be amenable to changing the bill so that it is everybody and not just the elected official.
Senator House Child, you have any response?
Thank you,
Senator House Child.
Yeah, thank you, Chair and Stephen, or maybe quite a. I'm certainly open to some more. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me?
Yes.
I wonder if I go off camera if it's better. Okay.
Yeah.
Yes, thanks.
Chair Zhang and Senator May Quaid. I'm certainly open to more conversations and I hear what you're saying regarding sort of a two tier situation. And so I think, yeah, as we sort of move forward, I'd be open to sort of looking at the differences between your bill and mine and where sort of the right balance is. I brought this bill forward at the behest of constituents in the local community who faced issues with trust with their local elected officials. So that was sort of the impetus for this. But yeah, certainly open to more conversations.
Senator makoyt.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And thank you, Senator Housechild. And I, you know, really, really commend you for working with your community and to Ms. Harla too, for coming and really being willing to say, you know, I, I made the legal decision but maybe wasn't the right one. And that just takes a tremendous amount of integrity. Since this is the committee that deals with, with local government, I wonder if we might work on changing this definition here of local elected official to be, you know, maybe municipality and then working that in. Maybe that's something we could do.
Mr.
Chair, certainly. Would you like to work with that on with council or any suggested language, Ms. James, or I'm sorry,
Lewis Hunter, Counsel for Local Government. I am certainly willing to work offline with the senators about replacing a definition. There are many definitions of municipality and statute that are different from each other. There are also definitions that we can create whole cloth to include different meanings of municipality. I believe there's one in the bill that Senator Makewait has. So I'd certainly be willing to work on that offline. I'm not sure if the senator intended to wanted a suggestion of language for an oral amendment right now, but certainly willing to work on that.
Senator maquaid.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And I think, you know, before we send it to Judiciary, I think we should make sure we get this right so that they know in judiciary with the scope of local government that we mean maybe we can go to other member questions and I can work on that language, certainly.
Senator Housechild, do you have,
you know,
I'd like to know your thoughts. It is your bill, Senator Housechild.
I think if Senator May Quaid wants to work on sort of defining that local government component. Yeah, I think that that would make sense. It's the prerogative of your committee. So I'm happy to take your feedback as a committee.
Certainly we will, Senator. Senator lanning.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'll maybe take a little bit of time.
So the question I have is about
the specific language in the bill that talks about data centers. And I don't know if the testifier is still online, but I'm guessing that the NDA she signed was not for a data center.
I don't know if I caught that
during the testimony, but if she could maybe respond.
And
again, this is maybe a broadening of the scope as well, but I'm curious as to know what. I mean, I don't know if she's still under the NDA, if she can even answer the question, but
maybe Senator Hauschild might have the answer to that. Senator Housechild.
Thank you, Chair Jean thank you, Senator Lang. Commissioner Harla, I believe, had to go back to a county commission meeting, but I do know that it was regarding a data center.
All right, Senator Lang, So I guess
the next question is it, should it be broader than that?
The bill,
I don't know if the issue that we're addressing right now isn't something that in the future could be bigger than just data centers, some other, or whatever the project may be.
Thank you, Senator. Household.
Thank you, Chair Zhang and Senator Lang. From my vantage point, and I'm certainly open to the point that Senator Lang is making, you know, regarding non disclosures for all sorts of economic development, I will just say, and I kind of alluded to this in my testimony, that from, from the knowledge that I've gained in talking to local government officials, NDAs are, I don't want to say common, but they are used for various economic development projects throughout the state of Minnesota and nationally. I think the uniqueness of the development of data centers has been more highlighted because of transparency issues and some of what has happened in local governments. So I, you know, took, took the feedback from constituents locally regarding concerns around data centers and non disclosures by elected officials and tailored this legislation to target that specific issue. I think broadening it would be a much larger discussion and I would really want to hear from local government officials and, you know, economic development organizations about sort of this process that plays out in local governments, because I think there are many cases whereby, you know, an NDA may not be a concern for constituents if there isn't sort of concerns around the eventual transparency around the project. One example I would use, Hermantown is a fairly small community, and if we were to have an opportunity to gain a Trader Joe's or some sort of specialty grocer, I'm not saying that Trader Joe's uses NDAs, but just in a hypothetical, if they did, I could see some initial need for that given the competitiveness of grocery, the grocery economy. And so I guess I just want to make sure if we do broaden it out, that, you know, that those considerations are brought into the conversation.
Thank you, Senator Housechild. Any additional follow up, Senator Lang? Okay, Senator Matthews then. Senator Coran, Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Appreciate the discussion on this bill. I've got to reiterate again, now that we're having the second hearing on this bill, and I'll probably reiterate it if we have a third meeting with a third member bringing a bill on this same topic down the road. I think the language of this one's a little bit better, but still misses a lot of the main points. It's very hypocritical to single out and target one specific entity of government when our state government readily uses them. Our state agencies use them all over the place. The executive branch often does many commissions and task force and boards. NDAs have been highly used for putting up thousands and thousands of acres into solar fields in my county with 00 local input because they deliberately made the project so big that under a state law that I've been trying to change for several years, they got to bypass local approval and go right to state approval to put thousands of acres of farmland into solar. And all undercover until the public found out about it after the the cake was baked and things were moving forward. So we're here to highlight one specific area and targeting one aspect to the neglect of everything else, which just feels discriminatory and hypocritical at that point. So I'm not going to bring my same amendment that I did the other day. It was fascinating to see everyone turn on a dime and realize, oh, we want this for this area, but we want to protect where we feel it benefits us. This is problematic to come out and single it this way. And the reason why it's been highlighted is because a year ago, when we had some of these projects coming forward and a community like mine that was trying to do it the right way, members of this body decided to lie to the public about what was going on with my local project and help blow it up into fantastic rhetoric that the media grabbed and took off with. That was in no way, shape or form attached to reality with my local project. And that's why it's gotten a lot of the attention. And so I'm going to continue to urge our committee to make this universal across the board. If you decide you don't want NDAs in government, then don't put NDAs in government. But we need to stop singling out some of these locales to the neglect of others.
Thank you, Senator Matthews, Senator Curran.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And Senator Hochschild and Senator Matthews covered a good portion of what I would have covered as well. But to pick a single business entity, the disfavored business of the month, is disingenuous. And you articulated Very well. The reason for them. I actually could find agreement with the no elected official should ever sign one. But you also then have, as I think you'll see in best practices, you do need to maintain some secrecy however, some discretion while those businesses are searching for those opportunities. This will send a message if you choose to move forward even with the current disfavored flavor of the month business, that Minnesota will be closed for business. We use them at all levels and especially in the early stages of land acquisition. Just shopping land acquisition and agreements. So I think it's a. We shouldn't be naming business types if it is for transparency. I also had the same. We were probably the first, we were the first large scale solar development when we found out all of the land was already under acquisition by the, by the power company or the. Not the power company, the company was building the solar farm and I got involved, probably why I'm here. Every single elected official lied about it. And so at the end of the day it is those who you elect and the solution is those who you elect in their replacement when they act outside of the boundaries of what the community wants. But they're going to need to have some competent city administrators that have this capability or Minnesota will be closed for business. And you can't just say, well we'll just keep it to this business, the rest of you will be okay. So I think it's a bad idea unless you're going to go across the board, you want full transparency and then close Minnesota for business. So thank you.
Thank you Senator Johnson Stewart. Then we'll go to Senator Makeway.
Thank you Mr.
Chair.
Thank you Senator Hauschild for bringing this forth. I just want to push back. I have been dealing with the data centers. They are good businesses. We have been trying to establish the type of environment that they want to come to regardless of if there's NDAs or not. I think that's a false narrative. Having an NDA opens up our business, our entire state to good government, to transparency. And I think that I'm just pushing back. I think an NDA creates a. Can create a system of distrust. It can blow up in the face of disclosure and cause more distress. Not just for communities where these NDAs are being enacted, but amongst government, amongst contractors, amongst engineers, amongst business. And I think it's good government. So we are working very hard to make Minnesota the place where data centers want to come because of our climate goals, because of our good business community, because of the values that we hold and were on display the last few months. This is a place where people want to move into And I think NDAs is good government. Now I would also agree with some of my colleagues that we want to expand this beyond data centers, and I'd be certainly open to that. I'm thinking of the Elko New Market water plant that adversely impacted many of the people who are in private wells and was done without any type of open community involvement. And if somebody knows other than that, please correct me, I'd be happy to listen. But those types of. As we see water become more and more scarce, we are going to see more and more communities being asked to share their water. And that's something that is, is also potentially very harmful to private well owners and to those who rely on our public water systems. So I'm open to that. And I think NDAs are good or prohibiting NDAs at whatever level is good government. I did mention to my colleague Senator Mae Quaid, that we may want to look into all government officials. We have lots of contracted government officials. Many communities cannot afford, for example, to have a full time city engineer, so they contract one. I am concerned about, I am concerned just frankly about my colleagues in the engineering community being asked to sign an NDA and protecting them from having to do that I think would also be good government. So I'm open. I think transparency is good for business. I want to push back against that narrative. I want Minnesota to be the place where, where data centers find an environment that is appropriate for climate goals, for regulatory goals, for working with the local communities. Secrecy breeds distrust. And so if we can remove the secrecy, I think we are moving towards a better business climate in general. So thank you, Senator Hauschild.
Thank you. With that, Senator Mae Quaid, if you're ready, Senator McQueen.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Are we still waiting? We're good.
Okay.
If I could have counsel describe the amendment, Mr. Hunter.
Thank you. So the amendment, I'll just read through the page and line. So Starting on page one, line 10, delete elected official and replace it with government. And then on page one, line 11, delete the word and. And then on page one, line 12, after the word charter, insert comma, or any employee of a city, county or town. And then on page one, line 13, delete elected official and insert government. Page one, line 16, delete represented by the official. And on the next page, page two, line one, delete elected official and insert government. And on page two, line two, delete official and insert government.
Senator McLean.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Hauschild. I didn't actually want to replace definition in your bill with my own definition. So I kept the, the way that you've constructed your bill, all the entities that are included, and just expanded it to be the elected official or any employee of. And so that is what the amendment reflects and I hope that that is amenable.
Senator Hochschild,
thank you. Chair Zhang.
Thank you.
Senator McQuaid. What would be the substantial difference if this amendment went on between the legislation that you introduced, or would it, for all intents and purposes be the same?
Senator McQueen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Senator House, I have two different bills, one that is really of my construction, so I'll focus on that one. My bill, it requires affirmative disclosure of certain elements before a data center is built. So it requires two public hearings where the information is posted at least 48 hours before the hearings of, you know, who the data center is being built for or by, and the end user, how much utilities it uses, sewer, water, electricity, where it's going to be located, how big, if it's near a school and if the people who are on or around it are going to be armed or have weapons. And so that makes any non disclosure agreements signed by anyone unenforceable to that information. So your bill just prohibits NDAs, period, for this purpose. Mine more forces some information to be made public before a hearing about data center construction.
Senator Hofschel.
Okay, thank you, Chair Zhang. Senator Makwait. So you mentioned that you have another piece of legislation. Is there another one that is about banning NDAs or is that, or is the legislation you just described here that that legislation.
Senator McQueen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator Hochschild. Yeah, I have a second bill that is originated with my other body author, and it just prohibits the use of NDAs for municipalities, period, with some limited exceptions.
Senator Hofstadt.
Thank you, Chair Zhang. Thank you, Senator McQuaid. I guess given the changes that are being made and how it would more closely resemble the legislation you mentioned that started in the other body, I guess it would be my preference that either, you know, either we keep this bill as is and let them both sort of be considered as we move forward, or if we are going to make a substantial change like this that we hear from stakeholders who want to provide feedback on sort of the broadening of the, of the legislation. And I don't know if that's possible in the time that we have or what the Chair thinks, but I do think, you know, I brought forward sort of the request from my constituents and in my conversations with stakeholders for elected officials Specifically, not that I'm necessarily opposed to broadening it. I just want to make sure that I sort of understand concerns that stakeholders would have.
Senator McQueen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator Hochschild. Just so I'm being really clear, the second bill that I talked about prohibits NDAs for everything, not just data centers. And your bill is being brought in to just be all types of employees or members of and then specific to data centers. So I would say yours is like right between the two bills I have and probably accomplishes the very targeted goal that you're seeking.
Got it, Senator Houston.
Thank you, Chair Zhang, and thanks, Senator McQuade. That's helpful. I guess I'm neutral to the change. I think if the committee feels it's the right move, you know, I think that's the prerogative of the state and local government committee. I just would say, you know, I will be interested, moving forward in sort of feedback from stakeholders if it does change.
All right. Any further comments, Senator McQuaid? Any other comments, questions or comments for members? Would you like to make a motion, Senator McCler?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I would make the motion to move the oral amendment as described by counsel.
Senator McQuade moves the oral amendment. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say no. The oral amendment is adopted. Any other questions or comments to the bill? Center House Child.
Thank you, Chair Zhang and members of the committee. This bill creates a clear statewide standard that prohibits government officials from entering into non disclosure agreements related to data center projects. By doing so, we remove the pressure on any one city or county to make decisions on their own. After feeling a sense of competition with other locals governments, no community has to feel like they are at a disadvantage for choosing transparency. Instead, we level the playing field across Minnesota. We still allow for economic development to move forward. We still allow companies to explore projects. But we make it clear that when it comes to our elected officials and other government officials, that there is first an obligation to the public and not confidential agreements. From my experience in Hermantown, it is clear that we have more work to do to get this right. The framework that we passed last year was a very strong start. And I appreciate people like Senator Ann Johnson Stewart on this committee who worked diligently on that legislation. This bill is a targeted update to ensure transparency and public trust are built into the process from the very beginning. At the end of the day, these decisions that shape communities for decades, the public deserves to understand what is being proposed and elected officials and staff deserve to operate without being put into a position that conflicts with their duty to the people they serve, serve. I appreciate the committee's consideration and would ask for your support.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator. House child. Senator May Quaid moves, moves the center file 45 48, as amended to be recommended to pass and referred to Judiciary. All Those affairs say II. All opposed say no. The motion prevails. Senate File 4548, as amended, is recommended to Judiciary. Next up, we have Senator Pappas, Senate File 4759. And joining with us, Senator Mann, Senator Pappas, whenever you are ready.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and members. The bill that we present today would repeal the state holiday that celebrates cesar Chavez on March 31, his birthday. I was one of the authors of the law that created this holiday with chief author Senator Patricia Torres Wray. The statue says Cesar Chavez Day celebrates the growing Latino community in Minnesota. I carry this repealer with respect for every worker who fought for their rights during the farm workers movement and for every Latino person who sees themselves reflected in the power of that movement. Many of you are already aware of the New York Times investigation published last week that revealed Chavez's sexual abuse and assault of two underage girls, as well as his adult colleague, organizer Dolores Huerta. The investigation was shocking, disturbing and necessary. Chavez has been celebrated for years for his role in the United Farm Workers union, while the women who survived his abuse suffered in silence. The fact that they came forward now is a testament to their courage and resilience. Whether they choose to share their stories or not, whether it takes days or decades, we honor and support every survivor. The message from today's workers and leaders is clear. Cesar Chavez Day is no longer how we should celebrate Minnesota's Latino and Latina communities. Out of respect and admiration for the survivors who came forward and for every activist who has felt pressure to keep their abuse a secret for the sake of their movement, we must repeal Minnesota's Cesar Chavez state Holiday. While we reconsider his legacy, I look forward to finding another way to honor Minnesota's wonderful Latino communities, whether that's the creation of a Dolores Huerta Day or a United Farm Workers Day. With extensive consultation with the broad Latina Latino community, I know that we will create a new holiday that we can all celebrate without reservation. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And Mr.
Chair, we simply. Senate file 4759 simply repeals the holiday.
Thank you, Senator Pappas. Senator Mann, anything else to add, members of the committee? Any questions or comments to the bill? Yeah, this is a tough one for Senator McQuade go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Pappas and Zeimer, thank you so much for bringing this bill. I think somebody recently said, and I think you both were in the room, that this is one more piece of evidence that we need to celebrate the collective and movements and not individuals. The stories from the survivors are truly horrific. And, you know, Dolores was 90 something, 96. And so it very well could have been that she would have lived a long, long life and never been able to tell her story publicly. And so I think this is both a good thing because it is important for us to say that men who sexually abuse children and women are terrible and we should not celebrate them. We should not lift them up, we shouldn't name days after them or make statues or airports or streets or anything. And this, you know, we're taking a really strong stand here. And I hope this is a demonstration of how easy it is to say even bad people who, you know, help lead good movements, still bad. And we can celebrate the movement without celebrating the person. So thank you.
Any other members questions or comments to the bill? Again, thank you for your work on this bill. And, you know, maybe we can look up Senator mann.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
To your point, Senator McQuaid, from the very beginning, Cesar Chavez Day and the recognition of one man completely overlooked the role that women played in the farm worker movement where they had really significant leadership roles. No movement is just one person. He does not represent our culture. His actions do not represent our resilience, our fight for justice for all people. And nor does he represent the heart and the strength that our women mean to our people. In Minnesota, we believe women, we believe children. And this action represents that. I ask for your support.
Thank you.
Any final words, Senator Pappas? And then with that, Senate File 4759, seeing no further discussion is laid over. Thank you, Senator Pappas. Are you looking to send it to the floor?
Mr. Chairman? I think we're supposed to send it to the floor.
Okay. Seeing no further, Senator May Quaid moves at Center. File 4759 be moved to general orders recommended to pass and move to general orders. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say no. The motion passes. Thank you, Senator Pappas. Next up we have Senator Muhammad, Senate File 2621. And as understand it, she's on her way here right now. Members, in the meantime, I'd like to give an announcement for the week. There will be a meeting on Thursday, 15 minutes after floor. On Friday, we will be meeting at 10am to 5pm in room 1150. I'm hoping we don't have to use that entire time. The hearing notice will be posted this afternoon.
Hello.
Welcome to the State and Local Government Committee. Senator Muhammad, whenever you are ready, you may begin.
Madam Chair, I think there's a. Mr. Chair, I think there's a technical amendment from council.
Senator McQuade moves the A4amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Sorry. The amendment is adopted. Senator Maquade, Senator Mohammed. I'm sorry.
It's a long week.
I get it. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Members before you is Senate file 2621. We know the challenges and the statistics. The high cost to build and sustain housing. The shortage of 100,000 affordable units that almost 650,000 Minnesotans pay more for rent and and mortgage that they could afford. That's where we were last session. And that was bad enough. But let's ground ourselves in the moment. Since December, Operation Metro Surge has terrorized communities, ruined local economies, bankrupted small businesses and forced Minnesotans into hiding and out of work. In Minneapolis, economic losses run well into the hundreds of millions of dollars in missing wages in a city with 35,000 households struggling to make rent before Operation Metro Surge. As we know, Operation Metro Surge has had a direct ripple effect across the state. From Wilmer to Rochester, St. Cloud to St. Paul, all over the state. We should keep that in mind as we consider the present. The present housing crisis. We cannot rely on short term, one time funding if we are to truly take on the housing challenge. We are stuck in a cycle of emergencies and we need a long term solution that that addresses the root causes. Senate file 2621. Before you is a constitutional amendment for dedicated revenue for housing. One for dedicated revenue for housing. A sales tax of three eighths of 1%. Estimated to generate $400 million annually for 25 years. That's transformational amount of predictable funding that will end emergencies and make it possible to to plan our way out of this crisis. The bill also creates three funds for distribution. A home ownership opportunity fund, a rental opportunity fund and a household and community stability fund. In Minnesota, we prioritize what's important. We dedicate funding to transportation, to health care and to natural resources. Housing should be next. A stable home is essential to a stable life. This amendment puts the decision in the hands of the people to affirm that our future starts at home. And with that, Mr. Chair, I think we have testifiers.
Thank you. Our first testifier is Nalima Manune. I'm Sorry, I'm totally. Could you please enlighten us? Please state your name for the record and you may begin. And next up we have Jiru Gobizi from Habitat for Humanity. Please state your name for the record, you may begin.
Sure. Thank you. Chair Jean Community Members, My name is Nelima Sitati Mwenene. I am the Executive Director of the African Career Education and Resource Inc. I am also one of the co Chairs of the Opportunity First Starts at Home Coalition. We are a coalition of over 80 organizations across the state of Minnesota who are united to tackle the critical issue of housing stability. Our mission is to establish a permanent source for for housing in our state which is essential for addressing the long standing housing challenges that we face. We know that effective solutions exist, but often they are underfunded and when funding is allocated it tends to be temporary, short term or insufficiently scaled to make a meaningful impact. The proposed bill outlines four key areas for funding distribution, 25% household and community stability, 25% to rental assistance, 25% to Bring It Home Minnesota and 25% home ownership opportunities. What does this look like in tangible terms? Over the next 25 years, we could potentially add 28,500 new rental units or preserve 200,000 existing ones. Additionally, we could create 25,000 new starter homes or finance 50,000 new home buyers. This is particularly crucial given that the average age of a first time home buyer currently in Minnesota is 40 years. The constitutional amendment is just one component of a set of broader housing solutions that includes appropriations, bonding policy changes, as well as local investments and federal funding and private partnerships. The current issues of high housing costs, rising rent, subpar quality of rental housing, and a shortage of starter homes are creating a bargain that is akin to a housing tax to Minnesotans. These issues disproportionately affect our service workers, especially those employed in restaurants, retail, home health care and other essential sectors, and it's putting a strain on our state's economy. For example, Ms. Mary is a retired member of my community in Brooklyn park who spent all her working years teaching and mentoring kids in our school district, but is currently at risk of losing her housing due to the rising costs of housing that have outpaced her fixed income. This proposal will ensure that we not only stabilize housing, but also the lives of valuable members and contributors in our communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Director munane. Next up, Ms. Gobeze, please state your name for the record and you may begin.
Thank you, Chair Zhang and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Giroux Govizay and I'm the Advocacy Director with Habitat for Humanity of Minnesota, the statewide support organization for the 24 local Habitat offices who serve as developers, lenders and homeowner counselors in 59 counties. You heard about the challenges facing all parts of Minnesota Habitat. We see the shortage of available homes in rural communities and the metro area alike. Currently, housing investments fluctuate from year to year, creating uncertainty for developers, lenders, and most importantly, families. Minnesota needs a stable statewide solution to make real progress on the housing needs of our state, including our lack of affordable housing supply. This amendment would generate roughly 400 million annually and establishes three flexible funds for rental opportunity, homeownership and community and household stability. Habitat Minnesota worked closely with other advocates to develop these recommended funds, ensuring they reflect the full housing continuum by supporting Minnesotans at every stage from homelessness prevention and affordable rental housing to pathways towards homeownership. First, the Community and Household Stability Fund was designed to help Minnesotans remain stably housed by preventing homelessness and displacement and improving housing conditions. As Nelema said, that would be 25% of the revenue. The rental opportunity fund, receiving 50%, is the largest, serving two significant purposes, supporting the creation and preservation of affordable rental homes and providing rental assistance to families experiencing housing instability. And then finally, for the Homeownership opportunity fund, also 25% of the revenue. We looked at the need for more affordable starter homes and how to best help more people become home buyers, including specifically addressing Minnesota's racial homeownership gap. This amendment would provide the predictability needed to build more starter homes, preserve existing housing and create pathways for first time home buyers. Together, these three funds are designed to work in tandem, addressing immediate housing needs through supportive services while also building long term pathways to stability and opportunity for Minnesotans and communities across the state. At Habitat, we know how closely housing stability is tied to health, educational outcomes and overall community well being. We urge you to support this amendment. Thank you.
Thank you to the testifier.
Next.
Mr. Anderson, please state your name for the record. You may begin.
Thank you, Chair Zhang and members of the committee. My name is Ben Helvik Anderson. I'm the Vice President of Policy and Organizing at Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative. Beacon is a leading developer and operator of supportive housing and also a collaborative of over 70 congregations united in the vision that all people have a home. I also serve as the fellow co Chair of this campaign, Our future starts at Home. This campaign's vision is to allow Minnesota Minnesota voters to say yes to dedicated housing investment and that Minnesotans have an active role in helping guide those funds to meet the urgent needs of their communities. This amendment creates three dedicated funds, each guided by an advisory council. These councils will be composed of experts, community leaders, and people with lived experience of housing instability. You, as legislators with the governor, are the deciders of where the money goes through the legislative process. These councils serve as a dynamic, powerful advisory bridge. They ensure that those who are closest to the housing crisis are the ones crafting the recommendations that come before you. An example of a similar structure is the Clean Water Council, which advises legacy amendment funds. This structure provides the flexibility our state needs. While most funds will likely flow through Minnesota housing, these councils can recommend that resources be directed to other agencies, such as the Department of Human Services, or to tribal and local jurisdictions. Ultimately, Minnesota needs a governance structure that is agile and grounded in community reality. At Beacon, we see this urgency every day. The landscape of supportive housing funding is currently in turmoil due to the significant federal retreat in funding for proven solutions for homelessness. These councils, working with you, will ensure that our state tax dollars are spent efficiently, transparently, and exactly where they will have the greatest impact on the ground. Thank you for the time and I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you.
Thank you. Next up, Dakota Morgan, policy fellow. Please state your name for the record and you may begin Chair.
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Dakota Morgan. I'm a policy fellow with the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless and a youth leader within Ramsey County's continuum of care. I also bring a lived experience with me of homelessness after being in foster care. I'm here today in the support of our Future Starts at Home act, specifically the Household and Community Stability Fund. For the members of the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless. This amendment is critical because it addresses one of the most consistent drivers of homelessness across our state. The cost of housing. Right now, rent functions like a tax on the most vulnerable Minnesotans, ones that cannot afford to pay without support. And when you can't pay that cost, there is no margin for error. People fall behind and too often they fall into homelessness. What makes this amendment different is that it is long term and a structural solution. It creates a dedicated, sustainable funding source that allows communities to not just respond to homelessness, but to prevent it. And this is not just a metro issue. The Minnesota collision for the homeless represents a statewide network. And what we are seeing in greater Minnesota is urgent. Communities are facing severe housing shortages, rising rents and limited infrastructure to respond when people lose their housing in many places, there are simply no available units and very few resources to stabilize people. This is a solution that meets the scale of that challenge. It works for all Minnesotans, including the communities that are often left out of funding conversations. Just as important is how these resources are governed. For a solution of this scale, it is essential that it remains grounded in community voice over time. That means ensuring people with lived experience of homelessness are not just included but are meaningfully involved in the decision making through councils. Because the reality is people who have experienced homelessness understand existence where the systems fail. And I know this firsthand. After aging out of foster care, I experienced homelessness at a point in my life where we already know young people are at risk. The transition and outcomes are predictable. And yet without the right resources in place, there was nothing to stop that instability from becoming something worse. That is the gap this fund is designed to close. The Our Future Starts at Home act is about making homelessness rare, brief and non recurring by giving communities the tools to act early, to respond effectively and to build systems that actually work. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your testimony. Members, any questions or comments to the bill before us? Senator Draskowski
thank you. Mr.
Chair.
I don't know where to start on this bill and I don't know how much energy to put into it. But Senator Mohamed, this bill doesn't stand a chance in the House. Why are we here with this bill today?
Senator Mohamed?
Mr.
Chair.
Thank you Senator Jaskowski, for that question. Just because the House is not doing their job doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Senator Jaskowski.
Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Mohamed we should do our job. And we should do our job working to craft laws that actually have a chance at passing. Otherwise we're spinning our wheels. Much like the element of socialism spins its wheels in believing that government creates wealth. Government doesn't create wealth, Mr. Chairman. It simply extracts wealth from the people of our state who work hard every day to produce it. That is where it's produced. Government simply takes it over, hijacks it, steals it and redeploys it and thinks that somehow good can come out of that. Mr. Chair, Senator Mohamed, this bill, I look at the language in the submission to voters and I mean the creativity of some of our members. And hats off to you for being very creative. And I see this with constitutional amendment after constitutional constitutional amendment members, the deception that happens in order to make the constitutional question sound so, so sweet, so wonderful. This is flowers and butterflies and lemon meringue all in one here on the submission of orders 2.9 through 2.12 of the bill to remove barriers. Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to remove barriers to home ownership? This isn't going to remove any barriers. All it is going to do is make other people pay for someone else's home. That's what this does to make rental housing safe and affordable. Mr. Chairman and members in the same bill on page three, we find prevailing wages. So the prevailing wage has to be paid to build these houses. This bill actually makes housing more expensive. Expensive, Mr. Chair. The money is taken from other people to pay for the house. So other people who are by the way, Mr. Chair, trying to pay for their own house and struggling to pay for their own house and forces them to pay for other people's houses. And as we began this hearing and hearing Senator Mohamed talk about Operation Metro Surge and people who weren't working, people who weren't working. Mr. Chair, we're going to take this money away from hard working people and use it to pay for houses for people who aren't working. That is not getting us ahead. Instead, we would be better off served by encouraging people to work, helping them find a job and then congratulating them for a job well done when they actually do the work instead of stealing money from people who are trying to get up on their feet and get ahead in this society and this state and this culture that we're in. Instead of that, we've got a bill that takes the money away from them and gives it in some utopian sort of fashion, believing that if we take it from these people and we buy them a house over there, we're going to somehow make housing cheaper. Well, I pointed out in the bill we're actually making housing more expensive. The money is fungible with government's involvement. They basically take it and convey it to someone else. There's not new wealth created with this bill and I think that should be clear to people. This is simply hijacking money from hard working Minnesotans, giving it to other Minnesotans who aren't working and then saying we're making housing cheaper, it's dishonest. And going back again to that language. And we do this not only in this bill, but I've seen number of them my tenure here, Mr. Chair, where we it's bumblebees and butterflies and lemon meringue pie. And when it gets to the voters, it's something that no voter can vote against because the way it's worded and the language that is used makes it sound so fluffy and so beautiful and so adorable that no one could vote no on it. And Senator Muhammad has done this here. But it's not accurate. It's not honest. It's not honest to the functions of the bill and the functions of what this bill does. So. So I think we should spend our time, Mr. Chair, on bills that actually do things that get us ahead, that improve our state, that have a chance of passing a legislature, because this one does not. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, Senator May quaid?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Mohamed, for bringing this bill. It has been quite a year and change the shocking increase to prices, gas, food, housing, I think the cost of tariffs alone have added like $20,000 to the price of a home build between cement and wood. We've, I mean, we can ask like $200 billion for a war no one can explain why we're in, but we can't afford SNAP or Medicaid anymore. But also our counties have to hire more people to administer fewer programs, raising our property taxes to do less. It is that's robbing people and all for tax breaks for like the wealthiest people in this country. That is the crime. That is the theft. And so you have brought us here a bill to say, Minnesotans, we want people to have safe, dignified places to live. We want that for ourselves. And we know too many renters and homeowners are paying a disproportionate share of their income, income that is not matching the cost of living, while corporations price fix and use AI algorithms to deny our health care claims and, you know, pay us different amounts for the same work. You brought us a bill that said why don't we pay a living wage to the people who build our houses and build the safe, dignified places for people to live. So I am so grateful to you for this bill because it is a piece of legislation that is clarity in a moment of crazy where we have billionaires telling us that if they don't make more money, if they don't get more tax breaks, then somehow the world is going to end. I think a lot of us feel like our world is ending because of what they are doing, these oligarchs that run our country. And so we have had a lot of pieces of legislation come through this legislature, through this body that want to deal with affordability. And Senator Mohamed, you are leading the way with this constitutional amendment. I really wish our partners, the federal government, would take note. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Mae Quaid. Any members, any other questions or comments? Thank you Senator Mohamed, for working on this bill. And I know you've gone through a lot to put this bill together. I'd like to give you the last word on this bill before we take a vote on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've worked on this bill the last three years, and it has so far in this session seen. This is its fourth committee. I know it has a number of other committees it will hit, but it's become a top priority for me this session because I have seen what our community has been through under a federal occupation. But what gives me most hope is seeing my neighbors and your neighbors empty their pockets, give generously to people, feed and house people, and delay what could still become a catastrophic eviction crisis. I'm confident that generosity will extend into the ballot box. And this is an opportunity for us to give Minnesotans the opportunity for them to vote for this.
And I appreciate.
Thank you. And seeing no further discussion, Senator Hamilton Jaeger moved center file 2621. Oh. Senator Hamilton Yeager has temporarily. Senator Johnson Stewart moved center file 2621, as amended to be recommended to pass and refer to the text. A roll call being requested. A roll call will be given. Again, I'll repeat. Senator Hammond. Senator Johnson Stewart moves Center File 2621, as amended to be recommended to pass and refer to the tax committee. Staff will take the role.
Chair Zhang.
Aye.
Vice Chair gustafson. Vice Chair McQuade.
Aye.
Lead language.
Senator Barr.
No. Senator Swatzinski.
Yes.
Senator Draskowski?
No.
Senator Fate.
Aye. Senator Hemingson.
Yeager.
Senator Johnson Stewart.
Yes.
Senator Coran.
Senator Matthews.
No. Mr.
Chair, there are five ayes and three noes.
There being five ayes and three noes. The motion passes. The motion prevails. Center file 2621, as amended, is recommended to pass to tax committee. Thank you, Senator Muhammad. Next up, we have Senator Clark. Welcome to the state and local government committee. Whenever you're ready, you may proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Chair Zhang. Senator Clark.
Thank you, Chair Zhang and committee. Today I bring you Senate File 3347. The Minnesota Clearance Grant Program today is this bill's second stop. On March 13, this bill visited the judiciary and public safety committee and received unanimous support. The Minnesota clearance grant program bill does three things. It reinforces the importance of. Of investigations as a law enforcement priority. It recognizes that catching violent offenders is the key to disrupting the cycle of violence and strengthens the collaboration across law enforcement agencies. And thirdly, it reinforces our fundamental need and desire for justice. So, as I said, this bill creates the Minnesota Clearance Grant Program, which is modeled after Ramsey County's similar program. In this program, it will award grants to law enforcement to investigate and examine violent crimes caused by non fatal shootings of a firearm. Historically, police departments have prioritized the fatal shootings of a firearm and this bill will provide funds that will to help expedite the investigation of non fatal shootings. This bill addresses the intelligent really helps make sure that we are investing in intelligent investigations and focusing on disruption of the cycle of violence. We know that when we target investigations into those non fatal shootings, people are more likely to feel that they have received justice and will be less likely to perhaps think that they need to take put justice into their own hands. This puts resources into the program similar to what Attorney Choi will share the success about they've had in Ramsey County. In a minute. I also have today with me Will Cooley from the Minnesota Justice Research center and David Zimmer from the American Center. American. I'll let David introduce himself.
Thank you.
Who will testify and answer questions as needed. But Chair Zhang, Mr. Cooley is prepared to go next.
Please state your name for the record and you may begin.
Chair Jeung, members of the committee, my name is Will Cooley. I'm the policy director at the Minnesota Justice Research Center. In 2024, 47% of violent crimes reported to police in Minnesota were solved. That's less than half. That's actually 3 percentage points lower than the solve rate in 2014 in Minnesota. We are underfunding, understaffing and neglecting the most important thing law enforcement can do to prevent crime. Solving violent crime sends a message that criminal behavior will not be tolerated, which deters future offenses, provides a sense of justice for victims and builds public trust in law enforcement agencies. Along with our partners, we're putting forth a series of bills to enhance investigations and create the next generation of great investigators. This bill is one of the most important steps we can take to solve crimes. As Senator Clark mentioned, solving non fatal shootings stops cycles of retaliation. By identifying perpetrators and holding them accountable, it signals to the community that law enforcement cares about the victim, regardless of that person's background or circumstances. This is also a matter of racial justice because when violent crimes go unsolved, it disproportionately affects marginalized neighborhoods. Smart investments in effective investigations may even yield the double dividend by reducing incarceration and crime at the same time. In polling, 73% of Republicans, 71% of independents and 83% of Democrats supported this bill. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. County attorney John Choi, please state your name for the record. You may begin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is John Choi and I serve as the Ramsey county attorney. And it's a pleasure to be here today in support of Senator Clark's bill to develop funding and a framework by which we can, as a state, figure out how to pull in the same direction. I think that's so critical as it relates to finding solutions to the problems that face our communities. You know, at the beginning part of the pandemic, we really sucked at solving crime because we were all blaming each other locally in my jurisdiction. We started pointing the finger at each other, diagnosing what the problem was. And finally we got into the room and recognized that we actually have a job to do, which is to address crime, to serve everybody that works and lives in our communities. And so we got into a room and we figured out some strategies, one of which is to focus on the solve rate and the clearance rate for non fatal shootings. And thank you to the 2023 Minnesota Legislature and the governor who signed into a huge public safety package that went across the state. St. Paul got $13 million. The county, Ramsey county got about $6 million. We chose to use about $1.7 million in initiative to improve the solve rate for non fatal shootings. The reason why that crime across the nation is not solved is because in many instances, many communities suffer from cyclical violence, retaliatory violence, and many times the victims do not wish to participate in the investigation or the prosecution. So we came up with an idea that we would figure out a way to treat those cases like a homicide, even though in a homicide the victim isn't present to participate. We felt like if we were to treat those non fatal shootings like homicides and respond immediately, develop out a victim witness emergency fund and resource, our investigators in our police departments, that we could actually move the needle. So in 2023, when this legislature appropriated a lot of money for public safety and we accepted the money at the board, we got to work right away. And in 2024, 2023, we had a clearance rate in St. Paul of 35%. That means 35% of cases were solved, the rest were not solved on non fatal shootings. So those non fatal shootings are if I shoot somebody and they get shot, but the emergency room saves her life, or I shoot at somebody and I'm just a bad shot. And this, by the way, is emblematic across the country, clearance rates for this type of crime are very, very low. And so in one year in Ramsey county, our clearance rate today is now over 70%. And so this bill will provide funding for other communities to work on this issue. And I really believe, as I stated at the very beginning of my remarks, that if we can all pull in the same direction and figure out that we have to work for the people and to get better outcomes around public safety, we can accomplish a lot. And this bill will help, I think, communities start getting together and start focusing and prioritizing what needs to happen. And in St. Paul, just last year, we had a historic, one of the a very historic low number of homicides, gun recoveries are up and things are going in the right direction and a 54% reduction in violent crime. Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you.
Next up, David Zimmer. Please state your name for the record and you may begin.
Thank you, Chair Zhang and committee members. My name is David Zimmer and I'm the Public Safety Policy fellow with center of the American Experiment. I'm also a retired peace officer who served 33 years in local law enforcement. 20 of those years as a detective working non fatal shootings. I can attest that they are among the most difficult cases to solve. They are difficult because they often involve uncooperative witnesses, family members and even victims born out of unresolved street conflict and a distrust that the system will bring justice to that conflict. As a result, far too many of these cases go unsolved. It's not uncommon, especially in larger agencies with large caseloads and limited staffing, for the clearance rates of these cases to be in the range of 20% or lower. This is unacceptable for a crime as serious as non fatal shootings. When we fail to solve these cases, we invite a dangerous cycle of retaliatory violence to take hold. This bill represents a solution to the problem and it uses the roadmap laid out by a handful of agencies across the country, including our own St. Paul PD. These agencies have assessed the problem and rededicated staffing and limited funding to respond to non fatal shootings in a manner consistent with how they respond to a murder. And the results have been promising, with a significant increase in non fatal shooting solve rates and a corresponding drop in overall violence. I feel the real value of this bill is not so much the monetary aspect, but rather the message it sends to law enforcement that we value solving these cases and support your efforts to tackle the problem. I'm a conservative who values a consequential criminal justice system I also clearly see the value in maintaining faith in our criminal justice system. And I believe this bill helps us support those values, and I hope you do as well. Thank you.
Thank you for the testimony. And with that, members, any questions or comments to the bill? It's been sent over from Judiciary already, right?
Correct.
Senator May Queen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Clark, for bringing the bill. I think it's great. And what I love is that it's like the flip of what we do in education. It's like we don't reward people for only doing well. It's if you're not doing well, we're
going to help you.
And I think that that is a good, a good place to, to be. This could be for any of your testifiers, do you know roughly percentage or benchmark how many fatal shootings or maybe fatal encounters are preceded by non fatal shootings?
Senator Clark? Or one of the test fires? Mr. Zimmer?
I don't have a specific number, but it is certainly the case that many homicides result from unresolved street conflict, conflict that precipitated by other shootings.
Thank you, Senator McQuade. Mr. Attorney Choi yeah.
Mr. Chair and Senator May Quaid. I don't know that I have a number either, but I could just tell you that a big proportion of, especially the gun violence when somebody is using a gun, in terms of cases that actually come to my office, are a result of some form of retaliatory or cyclical violence where you have a conflict that occurred sometimes like maybe a decade ago, and they're unresolved and they just persist. And so one of the saddest things that I ever had to experience was just listening to some of the young people in our juvenile detention facilities and what they say that they experience of oftentimes feeling like they're being hunted. And I think somehow that's the work that we need to figure out how to change. I think a part of that is solving these particular crimes to make sure that people who are willing to shoot and try to kill other people are put away and convicted and put away for a long time. But at the same time, we also need to be having that conversation. But how do we resolve conflicts without gun violence?
Senator Mike WADE thank you, Mr.
Chair. I really appreciate that. That's really helpful. And in fact, County Attorney Choi, when you said, you know, you were talking about some of the juvenile survivors and it brought to light this question, what are the prime who are the primary victims of non fatal shootings? Like, is it a age group? Is it gender? Is it like, who are we talking about? Or is it really varied?
I would say definitely, yes, Mr. Chair and Senator. I would definitely say it's male and younger focus. I would say probably anywhere from the ages of 16 to, you know, 20, 30 years of age. We have a lot of those cases in that age range.
Senator May quinn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that. I remember listening to a podcast not that long ago about that crime really is like a young man's game and that you can like really age out of it. And it was talking about what we might do with child rearing, children as adults. But the last thing you said, County Attorney Choi, about feeling like being hunted, it really resonates with me as a woman. And so I am going to just ask this question because I think it could open up maybe potential additional avenue for other funding streams and other bills. But what is the clearance rate for rape and sexual assault in Ramsey County?
Mr. Chair and Senator, thanks so much for asking that question because it's something that I have been working so hard at since 2016, when we became a Start by Believing community in Ramsey county. And we undertook a lot of work around this exact issue about what are we not seeing, because the prosecutor only sees what the investigator presents and the investigator only sees what the victim is willing to share. And so we recognize in 2018, when we released our two year study around our responses to sexual assault, that so much needed to change. So at that moment in time, 2/3. So this is going back to 2018, 2/3 of the cases that were brought forward to a victim reporting to police, two thirds of those cases never made it to my office. Only a third did. Right. And of that third, we only charged about 35% of those cases. Now, the good news was is that all of those cases we got convictions on and we never lost a jury trial. But we weren't taking the cases, the hard cases, to court. We weren't thinking about what was causing victims not to want to report to the police. And we were not thinking about why so many of these cases were not being sent to the prosecutor for prosecution review. And what we found was there was a huge dropout rate of victims. And so one of the things that we did in 2018 was we beefed up the advocacy program so that we could have advocates with investigators right there to help explain maybe sometimes the delay training for better questioning of victims so that people don't feel like they're being questioned. Right. I think that's a big part of how we do those investigations. It should feel for a victim just like it would feel for me if I reported to the police that someone broke into my garage and stole my ladder. I would never, ever feel like I was under some sort of questioning or something like that. And so we've done a lot of training in that area. And so today, our more of those cases are now coming to the county attorney's office. We have a better. We're doing better around the dropout rate, and our charging rate is now like any other case in our office. And so that was changed over the course of about 10 years. But today, I can confidently tell you that when we start asking questions like this about what are we not seeing if we start talking to the people who are the victims of these crimes and learning a little bit more about their needs and why they don't want to participate, and as I can articulate to you, is because many times these young people feel like they're being hunted. So what can we do to address that? And so this bill will actually make some of those investments in creating, like what we did, an emergency victim and witness fund to help address some of the basic safety needs that are apparent after a shooting. So sometimes we've used this money to just help people get out of town for their safety. Right. Or to help them with some form of housing assistance. And by creating that stability, our theory of change is that these individuals, once they get to a place where they are safe, that they will seek to participate in a police investigation and a prosecution so that we can hold the perpetrator accountable. But we also need to get out of our mindset that this whole case revolves around the participation of a victim, because in a homicide case, the victim is not present. And so we can solve those cases and we can hold accountable those perpetrators by thinking about how to do these investigations, just like we would do for a homicide. And we. And by the way, St. Paul Police Department has a 90% clearance rate for homicide cases. When I tell people that around the country, nobody ever believes me, but they have done that historically for a very long time.
Thank you, Attorney Choi. Senator Draskowski.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Interesting. Mr. Choi. So to begin with, I'm a hunter. And the most precarious position you get in as a hunter is when you're hunting in grizzly bear territory, because then you realize that something else is out looking after you. The reason I struggle with this bill is I hear and read stories so often where Ramsey county and Hennepin county, they're letting felons out time after time after time again. They go in, they get convicted of a felony, and they're out on the street. And then they perpetrate another one and they're out on the street and they do it again and they're out on the street. Mr. Choi, I had somebody threaten my life here in the legislature two years ago, maybe about the time the money was getting let out for what you described to us, 2023 or 2024. And the text message from the individual was, I will kill you and your family. I know where you live. I notified the police. They found him in probably a couple hours. He ended up in your office, and you let him off on a diversion. So my struggle isn't with the idea of getting more clearance for these people and getting them into your office, but it's that, okay, the people of Minnesota pay money to help police get them to your office. If you don't do your job and the courts don't do their job, why are we spinning our wheels and spending the money on it? That's what comes through my mind and what I wonder about. I struggle with your county and the one next to you and wonder what in the world is going on there and if this wouldn't happen in the outstate counties. In the outstate counties, they work hard to convict these people and find a level of deterrence that is not happening in your community. So I guess I'm rambling. But Mr. Choi, I appreciate if you'd react.
Senator Draskowski, I hope that we communicate through the chair, and I know you've been respectful of that. But, Mr. Choi, would you like to provide a response to that?
Yes, Mr. Chair and Senator, the first thing I'd like to say is I'm sorry that that happened to you, But I think you're coming at me with this thought that you're right and I'm wrong, and I think that's what's wrong here. I don't know exactly what happened with your case, but I think the most important thing as it relates to some form of intervention and prevention is that the person number one got caught. If you read studies after study, they will tell you that the most important thing is that we have to solve the crime, that we have to arrest the person and the person should be charged with the crime. And then in terms of an outcome, I don't know what this person's criminal history was, but I suspect that the charge, if the person said that they wished to kill you, probably would have been a felony. Terroristic threats Charge, under the guidelines that this legislature has created over history and the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, that person is not going to go to prison. And so if there is this belief that somehow that we should violate the rules of the guidelines. Right. And send that person to prison, first of all, that's not possible under our system unless you had some way to use the aggravating factors in that particular case. I don't know the facts of your case. I'd be happy to look into it. But you're assuming that some sort of diversion or some sort of adjudication, maybe there was jail time in this particular instance. Certainly if that person was arrested, they would have served some time in jail. Maybe the sentence could have had some jail. I don't know the facts of what happened in that particular case. But if you assume that the only way to prevention and deterrence is really through a prison sentence or a jail sentence, I would beg to differ. I would actually tell you that we have data in our office that shows that less reliance on prison or just using prison when we absolutely have to can yield actually a better safety outcome. What we want is we want to do right by you as a person that was harmed. What we want to do is make sure that that behavior doesn't occur again. And we want this person to not be re referred or recidivate. I don't know what the answer to that question is, but those are the goals around public safety and justice. And I think sometimes we make this mistake that somehow that only safety can be achieved by sending people to prison or to jail. What happened in that case is it was investigated, it was charged, and then we seek the best measure of whatever that accountability is. And I'm sorry if, if what I'm telling you, it doesn't comport maybe with your values, but I believe that it comports with the values of my community about getting the proper outcome, which is to make sure that that person doesn't recidivate, to have some modicum of accountability. I'm sorry that we, from your perspective, we haven't done right by you because maybe you wanted something different. But the role of the prosecutor in your community as well as mine is to represent the community interest, not necessarily the victim. We certainly want to do right by the victim. We don't represent the victim, but we do right. And we try to represent, we must represent our community.
Senator Driscos, thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Choi. Mr. Choi, I don't want to make this about me. I was using that as an example of what I Am seeing we read in the paper nearly daily about these two counties letting people out and with very high levels of charges, felony charges, reading where they're being set free and then re aggravating again after that. So my question to you is, why should the taxpayers of Minnesota pay for this special category? I'm not opposed to this category that you guys are talking about in the bill and holding these people accountable. But when they get to your office and get to the court, we need to have, we need to have them act and have them act in a way that is going to deter future behavior. Thank you. Mr.
Chair, is that a question or just a comment? All right, members, any other member questions or comments? Senator Swadzinski,
thank you for coming in. Mr. Chao, you said something that has, I've been thinking about ever since you said it a few months, moments going. I really don't. I'd rather hear it from you again rather than me paraphrase. But you, you said something to the
effect
to my colleague, to the right, that your assumption is that he is right and you are wrong. Is that accurate,
Mr. Choi?
I think that might be true.
Okay. I mean, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. It just, I think that's one of the problems with America right now is we're assuming that you're wrong and I'm right. And I appreciate that little, you know, eight, ten word sentence I've been thinking about ever since you said it. And at the risk of showing my age, there was this great song when I was a kid and one of the lines is in it is nobody's right if everybody's wrong. And we've gotten so uncivil in our society and our discourse and our discussion and it's just become so vitriolic, if that's even correct pronunciation of that word. And I don't even know. Thank you for giving me pause for thinking about all the things that I've been thinking about since you said that statement. And I hope we can somehow in coming cycles move beyond assuming everybody's wrong, if they disagree, if they, if I don't agree with them. And so thank you for giving me that, that time for self reflection. I appreciate it more than you'll ever know. Thank you, sir. Good luck to you in the. On this bill.
Yeah, thank you for that. And I just wanted to clarify for members that only, only the appropriation portion of the bill is in our jurisdiction. Senator Barr.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, because that's exactly what I wanted to ask about. I don't know when you're planning on filling the numbers in, but the appropriation piece is got a whole bunch of dots. So how many dollars or did I miss an amendment someplace?
I'm sorry, Senator Clark, Chair Zhang, this was updated in Judiciary with $3.5 million and the on.
Sorry, Mr.
Chair, with the same details.
Center bar in details you said also. All right, thank you.
Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Hemonson Yeager moves that Senate File 3347 to be recommended to pass and referred to finance. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The motion prevails. Senate File 3347 is recommended to pass and referred to finance. Thank you, Senator Clark. Next up, our final bill. Senator Bolden with C file 3613. Whenever you're ready, you may begin. Senator bolden.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair,
for hearing this bill. I do have an author's amendment, Mr.
Chair.
I don't know if you want to address that first. I'm happy to talk about it at any point.
Certainly. Senator May Quade, move the A. Was it the A1amendment? All those in favor of the A1amendment say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The amendment is adopted. Senator bolden.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just will say that a one amendment. Thank you for adopting that. That cuts one section where we were not able to get consensus with some stakeholders. It fixes a swap in election years in section 6, and it gives some comfort language for the Secretary of state in section seven and eight for deputy clerk and deputy treasurer. So, Mr. Chair, I bring this bill before you in an effort to clean up and clarify several technical statutes for township government around land conveyance, town notaries, temporary town board appointments, and formation of a new township. I know that the Minnesota association of Townships has been working on this bill for a number of months. As amended, the bill has been cleared by a number of stakeholder groups, including the cities, counties, Secretary of state's office and the Commerce Department. And I want to thank them for all the work that has gone into doing that. At this point, I would say that Senate File 3613 is pretty straightforward. But to help explain the bill, I do have Ms. Maddie Cash here to testify in house counsel for the township association, and we'll turn it to her.
Mr.
Chair, thank you for that. To the test driver, please state your name for the record and you may begin.
Yes, thank you, Mr.
Chair, and committee members, for hearing me today. My name is Maddie Cash. I am with the Minnesota association of townships. This bill is to address some concerns that township officers have in running township operations. They are. These townships are really small, they're rural, they're run by lower populations. So it's harder to find people to fill those roles. Sometimes, sometimes those people are retired or filling part time duties. So the first part of this bill addresses clerk notarization. And it allows clerks to notarize records for the township without violating statutes that prevent them from notarizing their own signature. They're often required to sign documents for the township, and this allows them to do that without fear of being prosecuted for that. Next, it talks about land formalities. This allows townships to convey easements, which is not allowed under this current statute. So that changes that.
That addresses that.
It also changes. Makes changes to the creation of a township. We had our first creation of a township last year, first time in 25 years. And we noticed some issues with the process in that. So we fix that language there. And it also addresses some concerns in the case where a clerk or a treasurer is suddenly unable to fulfill their duties, the office becomes vacant so that deputies can take over and they can continue that work with ease and continuity. So that is everything that we have written down here for you. So thank you for hearing us.
Thank you. And with that, members, any questions or comments to the bill? Senator Matthews?
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
So of the list of supporters mentioned, I didn't hear townships mentioned. So just a clear answer. Is the township saying that they're in support of this bill at this point? Are they not in that position, Ms.
Cash or Senator Bolden?
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I will let Ms. Cash say, but this bill was brought by the townships.
It is.
They are asking for this.
Senator Matthews, any follow up? Ms. Cash?
Yeah, I'm happy to clarify we are
in support of this bill.
Yes, certainly. Any other member questions or comments to the bill? The final word, Senator Bolden, thank you for your support. All right, seeing that, seeing no further Discussion, Center File 3613, as amended, is laid over for possible conclusion. Thank you, Senator Bolden and members. With that, the committee is adjourned. Sam.