Senate Spotlight: Protecting Public Trust / Prioritizing Infrastructure Projects / Offering Students More Choices - Episode 207 - Mar 27, 2026

To this day, if there's a vehicle that looks like a police vehicle and I'm on the road, I'm taking exits and taking lefts and rights to try to avoid that person.

Plus we're discovering all these chemicals now that are polluting our water. So you have the forever chemicals. That's another problem. That's why I really think it's a dire situation.

We want to give our students the choices, but we also want to promote healthy choices in our schools.

Senate Spotlight is produced by the Minnesota Senate and Senate Media Services.

peace officer a a felony. Impersonating a peace officer can create dangerous situations and erode the public's trust in legitimate law enforcement officers.

3735, which strengthens the penalties for impersonating law enforcement. Currently, a person who falsely impersonates a peace officer with the intent to mislead another can be charged with a misdemeanor. Senate File 3735 changes that to a felony and adds the possibility of jail time and a fine as well. Senator John Hoffman, who survived last year's attack, says not only is the bill good politics, it's personal.

Senator Hoffman has another bill that aims to prevent more attacks like the one his family experienced. Senate File 4235 bans public safety vehicles from being sold to the public if they haven't been stripped of law enforcement identifiers like equipment or insignias so that no one can be misled about who's behind the wheel.

Both bills passed out of the Judiciary

on to their next committees. When it comes to improving public safety,

Thank you so much for having me.

We were all over the state. We will do the Northwest, the Northeast, the Southwest, the Southeast Central and the Minneapolis, St. Paul, Twin Cities, broader Twin Cities area. And everywhere we went it was water and sewer infrastructure and road infrastructure. Also, you know, there were other things that we saw state agencies also had a need higher ed, certainly needed asset preservation. We call it deferred maintenance, whatever you want to call it, it's like roofs and windows and things that are falling apart. And I think we have not done a good enough job in keeping up with all those needs. And that's why I said the situation is dire. And in addition, especially our water and sewer infrastructure, a lot of that was built during the Clean Air Act 70s. So now we're talking about it being 50 years old and it's outdated. You need to replace that infrastructure. It's aging. And also we're discovering all these chemicals now that are polluting our water. So you have the forever chemicals. That's another problem. That's why I really think it's a dire situation.

I think it's two things. It's one, consistent large bonding bills would help with a significant amount directed toward deferred maintenance is the expression we use Keeping up with what we have, taking care of what were the buildings that we own. Because it's not just state buildings. We own a lot of buildings, but it's also the University of Minnesota, all their campuses, and all of the Minnesota state campuses. We're responsible for helping them with deferred maintenance. So that's one thing. The other thing is for local governments that are now coming to us with needing help to replace their agent infrastructure. They could have been setting money aside, you know, having a reserve fund, having a replacement fund, you know, gradually raising their water and sewer fees to help pay for that, so that now it's not a situation all of a sudden where they're raising the fees and it's not enough, and they need our help.

We look at several things. First of all, we want to know that the project is shovel ready so that the money's not sitting in the bank, if you will, waiting for them to kind of get ready for the project. And we also maybe ask them to phase so that we can just fund part of a project. We will only fund up to 50% of a project. So the local community has to have skin in the game. Local communities have to set priorities. You know, they come in our first priority, second, third, whatever, and then we really look at recommendations by members, and then it's just hard to spread the money around, really, the whole state. A lot of people are unhappy.

Oh, it's up to me. I would do 2 billion. I mean, and I would do it every year until we get caught up. But I think it's more realistic that it's going to be 1.2 billion. That's within the Minnesota management and budget guidelines, close enough to what the governor has suggested, because he didn't suggest any local projects, really. And our members really expect that we're going to do local projects.

Yes, it can, because this is the bonding year like we talked about originally. So it will cost us $21 million in debt this year, and then 159 in the next biennium. So out of however much we're going to spend, we have to set aside 180 million for the debt. Now, this is a change because in the past that debt was just absorbed, what we call was absorbed into the forecast. So it was kind of spent and it was as if it was paid for before we even saw the budget. But we changed that last year because we didn't think that we had actually given MMB the legal authorization to put it in the forecast. And we thought it was just more upfront that we say this is how much this bill is going to cost, you know, in the next biennium, and we have to budget for that.

Well, there are, you know, there's four bonding leads, Republican, Democrat, two of each in the House and the Senate. And so we will have that discussion and then we'll have that discussion with leadership. So I would expect that that dollar amount, which I'm guessing is going to be 1.2 billion, that will be determined maybe right after the break.

Well, unfortunately, the bonding bill tends to be the last bill we pass, which, which I really don't like that. So I would like to do an early bonding bill because the earlier we pass it, then you're right, the earlier the money can flow. But let's say that we do pass it in May sometime. Then all the groups that have been funded, they have to have a contract with MMB Minnesota Management and Budget that explains what the project is and how they're going to fully fund it because the state is the last dollar in. So the local community has to figure out where the rest of the money is coming from, regardless of whether we give them what we've asked or likely less than what they've asked. So once that's all figured out, then it's a reimbursable system. So then as the local city, let's say as they spend the money, they submit their invoices then to MMB and then they get reimbursed for that, probably on a monthly basis basis.

There used to be more consistency when I first came into office where people understood that, you know, we do a kind of a large bill during the bonding year, which is like the even year, and then we'd often do a smaller bill even during the other year. The Odd year. And then at some point it got really involved in leveraging by the minority party because it has to be a 2/3 vote. So I need all 34 of my Democratic members to vote for it. Plus I need at least seven Republicans. And I would love to have more, actually, because most of our bonding bills really heavily support rural Minnesota. When you think of all the programs that we have that go, go out the door, our higher ed institutions, our DNR facilities, trails, I mean, that is all in rural Minnesota. State parks, et cetera. And the local communities that we fund are often in rural Minnesota. So I don't really like the idea that it's been used as a leverage. I think that's hurt us in terms of passing bonding bills. And, you know, when my party was in the minority, we used it as leverage and so did Republicans. So I've argued, argued, argued that we should negotiate within the bonding bill and not bring in outside issues. And last year that's what we did. And so I think it got to be even a stronger bill for the minority because of that insistence that we negotiate within the bill. But that's fine. They need it. Those communities all need it. We didn't give out any money to people who don't need it and don't deserve it.

Exactly.

It plays out pretty well. I think mostly the difference is they use this expression called wants and needs. And so the needs obviously would be to the Republicans, the water, the sewer, the roads. Needs to urban Democrats can often be very different because we have the Met Council, we have our own water facilities. But maybe what our communities need is a community center, you know, a park, you know, or money for a park. So it can really vary on what people think are wants and needs.

Well, hope springs eternal. You know, I wouldn't want to say it's guaranteed because you just never know what sometimes can happen. That's why I don't like leaving it until the last day. Even last year we had to go into special session. Then we passed the bonding bill and the special special session because we weren't quite there yet. I would like to say that if we. We have a very good relationship with all our US4CO chairs and we work together really well and we are all flexible and willing to compromise. And I think that's part of the art of legislating is being able to work with your colleagues, you know, across divides and get the job done for the people of Minnesota.

Well, first of all, you have to remember, and that's. That's a challenge, but I think that the change has happened in which the years in which the bonding bill got more divided, got more partisan, and was used as leverage. That was kind of a bad change that happened. I think we're getting away from that now and getting back to we all benefit from a bonding bill. I think that we have not changed enough in that 20 years ago, we were doing bonding bills, like for 900 million, and the governor came in with a $900 million bonding bill, and construction costs have gone up. The number of projects have increased. We're funding more local projects. So that's been a real problem. But the idea. We didn't always tour either. And we used to mostly just do whatever the governor wanted in terms of infrastructure, and we didn't do a lot of local projects. So that's definitely changed. And the local communities have just come to us and asked us to for help. And in 2023 in particular, when we had a lot of cash, that's when we decided to help a lot of nonprofits. And if we don't have cash, because only bonding dollars can only go to a governmental entity. So if we don't have cash, like we won't this year, then we can't really help those nonprofits. And a lot of them do provide services that are very much needed in local communities. It's just the way it sometimes works. Is that a nonprofit does your local homeless shelter, for example. Yeah.

All my friends who have retired have said, don't plan anything. Don't make any commitments. Just give yourself time to figure it out. So that's my plan, is not to plan. I have a lot of interests. I have a lot of grandchildren. I might still be around here. Who knows? Some people have started to approach me already about possibly still working on some issues. So we'll see. But it is, you know, it is nice, actually, not to have a campaign. I can just focus on being a legislator this session and not have to worry about campaigning.

Just visiting. That's right.

Thanks so much for having me.

We are in an affordability crisis. And this is an intersection of those two things.

housing parks are being forced out of their homes due to predatory practices from out of state private equity firms. But those practices include price gouging and aggressive evictions.

is afforded to protect the more than 180,000 Minnesotans who live in these parks.

Residents Bill of Rights. The bill does three main things. It stops landlords from raising rent by more than 3% a year. It gives residents the opportunity to buy the park if it goes up for sale, and it strengthens resident protections. The bill's next stop is the Senate floor.

Great to be here, Veronica.

Well, this legislation is modeled after the federal legislation that just passed bipartisanly and signed by President Trump a couple months ago to bring more choice to school students across Minnesota for milk consumption at lunch and expanding to whole milk and other milk options that are currently not available under the milk policies since 2010 that have been limited to just skim skim milks and low fat milks.

It would. It would also accommodate anybody that requests a non dairy beverage, almond or other alternative milk products similar in Nutrition. But, but that would be also available.

Well, that policy changed. It was a heavy handed action by the federal government in 2010 that took away choice for students and lunch school lunch providers. And that's what we're trying to remedy and that's what the federal legislation is also attempting to remedy by bringing back whole milk and 2% and other choices of milk, including flavored milks and some option as some options for students to choose from to encourage more milk drinking and more variety for students and school districts.

You know that issue was discussed at the federal level when Congress considered this bill that passed bipartisanly. It does not because again, it doesn't mandate any certain type of milk that has to be drank like the 2010 heavy handed action from the government. It just brings more choices. But as Congress had heard when this bill passed and the testify testifiers talked about, ironically, there's studies that have shown an association with whole milk or higher fat milkshake not being correlating to more obesity. And in fact, in 2010 when this limited low fat or skim milk policy went into place, the obesity rate in the United States for children was at 17%. It is now up to 21% after they mandated skim milks in the school districts. And so there doesn't seem to be a correlation. There seems to be an interesting association in many studies, as Professor Ayub from Albert Einstein Medical School in New York had testified to Congress that obesity rates seem to actually be lower in students or children that have drank higher fat milks. And so they're not conclusive, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation that the whole milk or the higher fat milkshake are a result of the obesity. In fact, the opposite seems to be. Some of the results and associations in many of these studies that Professor Ayub cited from Albert Einstein Medical School in New York and other groups have talked to us about this. And so we think bringing choice back to students and school districts across Minnesota is a good policy and let people choose what flavor, what type and what fat milk they desire because we also want to help students develop healthy choices.

Largely it's Been supported bipartisanly by Democrats and Republicans. As a Republican author, I welcomed bipartisan support. Very, very little criticism. One, one critic and committee. But that was, that was all we, we heard. Many, many groups testified in favor of this. Many ag groups, Minnesota milk producers, Farm Farm Bureau, Farm Union, and groups that just generally wanted to see this choice and option offered to our school students so they can develop healthy, healthy choices and have healthy options.

Well, that was maybe the most critique or criticism we had in committee. But as I answered in committee and again in the legislation, it doesn't mandate any type of milk that schools have to provide. It just opens up for choices for schools to offer whole milk and other milks. If the students do not want to consume, say one type of milk, the school can, can adjust their orders and they don't have to stock a milk that people don't want to purchase or drink in their school. And they can fill that with whole milk, 2% chocolate milks or other flavored milks that meet nutritional standards. That ultimately is the goal, to have students drink healthy choices and consume more products of their choice.

It is an opportunity for schools which right now and previously up to since 2010 haven't been able to offer this to students. And in many cases we've heard anecdotal stories about milk consumption go down or milk waste be a big problem in our schools. And so that's. Those are all positive things that can change with more choice left to the school districts and the students with their desires. And of course parents can have some impact and influence with their local school districts.

It certainly can and that's part of the motivation of the legislation. We want to give our students the choices of, but we also want to promote healthy choices in our schools that students can pick and it benefits farmers. The dairy farmers are the obvious ones. That milk is cartoned right here in Minnesota, produced off of Minnesota dairy farms. Those are tax paying businesses and help pay for the school's costs in their communities. And so it really is an economic driver for our farmers in our communities to have this milk as A healthy choice once again back in our school districts. And it really is part of the whole economic cycle that we want to keep healthy here in Minnesota and promote more students getting healthy milk choices for their lunch options and not to have milk that they throw away because we've heard stories about high milk waste with these previous limited options of just skim and low fat milk. And that's not good for anybody. And we don't want to see milk and food thrown away. And there's been reports by many that more choices and whole milk choices and 2% choices are the most desired choices by students. And it will eliminate or lessen the milk that's gotten thrown away in our school lunch programs, as well as encouraging more students to drink milk as a healthy choice during lunch.

like to start with?

Here you are, Senator. All right, I will go for oat.

I hadn't heard that. Thank you.

Cheers, Senator.

That's all the time we have today. Thank you for joining us and see you next time.