(hopeful music) - [Announcer] "Your Legislators" is made possible by: from the grain bin to the planter, Minnesota Corn builds market opportunities for corn farmers, mncorn.org.

Minnesota Farmers Union, standing for agriculture, working for farmers, on the web at mfu.org.

(cheerful music) (cheerful music continues) - Good evening, and welcome to the end-of-session program of "Your Legislators."

We're delighted that you, our viewing public, have joined us for a wrap-up session with some of the leaders of our Minnesota Legislature to talk about this session and what's been accomplished, what was left on the table, what might yet to be done.

For over four decades, this program has come to you from Pioneer Public Television, now in Granite Falls, Minnesota.

And we're delighted to, once again, wrap up our season with an opportunity to discuss the important issues facing the people of the State of Minnesota, and the resolution, or at least attempts to address some of those issues in the preceding legislative session.

As always, we have a distinguished panel of guests, many of whom are veterans of our program, have been with us on previous occasions, and you will recognize them as they help unravel the mysteries of St.

Paul.

Let's begin with an opportunity for each of our guests to introduce themselves to you, the viewers.

And let's start with Representative Pursell from Northfield.

Representative Pursell, tell our viewers a little bit about you and your background, and the district you represent, and we'll take it from there.

- Sure.

Thanks so much, Barry, for having me.

I'm a first-timer, flattered to get the call.

I identify as the last rural member of the DFL House Caucus.

I represent Northfield, Lonsdale, Dundas, half of New Prague, and six townships in East Minnesota.

(coughs) Excuse me, I'm completing my second term in the House.

So I've been through the biennium twice, have four sessions under my belt.

And my area that I work a lot is sort of the intersection of agriculture and the environment.

I'm a recovering farmer, grew vegetables and then commercial-cut flowers.

I'm a clean water professional environmental educator.

Yeah, so I live in the Town of Northfield, which is pretty darn blue, and the rest of my district is pretty darn red.

So as we were talking about before, that's part of what makes District 58A really special.

So thank you so much for having me.

- Very good.

We're delighted to have you with us.

And we'll be pursuing some of those issues that you discussed.

Let's go to Senator Nick Frentz next.

Senator Frentz, of course, is from North Mankato, but of course, I asked to do a shout-out, because I was born, raised, and grew up there.

I'm a graduate of Franklin Elementary, Franklin Junior High, and the last graduating class from Mankato High School.

So Senator Frentz, I stole some of your time, but tell our viewers a little bit about your background.

- That's okay, Barry.

I don't think your viewers are gonna mind if you get a little more and I get a little less time, but hello, everybody.

Glad to join you.

I'm Senator Nick Frentz from North Mankato, representing District 18, roughly described as the Mankato area.

Love the show "Your Legislators."

I'm at the end of my third term.

Senator Jasinski and I are part of the same freshman class, first sworn in in January 2017.

And the state's worst-kept secret is how much I love the job and love my district, just like all of you.

I serve as assistant majority leader, honored to chair the Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate Committee.

Also honored to chair the Pension Commission, and serve also on Rules, Commerce.

Was on Bonding, and talked my way out of it just in time.

And really just think we're at a point where Minnesota's gonna go forward in a very positive way.

Judge, I'll give the full disclosure.

And Senator Jasinski, you'll like this one.

Judge Anderson's father and my grandfather were the Republican county chairs, combined for over a decade in Blue Earth County.

And I never got to meet Judge Anderson's father, but I can tell you, my grandfather was the most stringent fiscal conservative in the history of mankind plus 50 times infinity.

Ask me sometimes off camera how easy it was to make a long-distance phone call out of that home.

Thanks.

(John laughs) - All I'm gonna say about that, Senator Frentz, is, I remember discussions about, well, after family members returned home, you could call person to person to make sure they got home, but you wouldn't call direct, because you might have to pay for the call.

So I'm very familiar with the issues that you identify there.

Senator Jasinski, let's move to you, tell our viewers a little bit about yourself.

- Sure.

Thank you.

Senator John Jasinski from Faribault, born and raised here all my life.

Actually been in local and state government for 33 years, actually, over half my life.

I'm a commercial real estate broker by trade.

I'm also in my third term.

This is my 10 years I've been in.

Did a lot of work on Transportation, Bonding my first 10 years.

I've been on those two committees my entire time, last two years on Finance as well.

But I've been on many others also, as well as Pensions with Senator Frentz.

You know, I really enjoy it.

I think Faribault is a great area all the way down to Janesville, all the way up into the northeast of Wanamingo, Dodge County, Rice County, Steele County, Waseca Counties.

I serve as the deputy minority leader.

I've been on leadership for eight of my tenures.

That's pretty much it for me.

- Very good.

Very good.

And finally, last, but certainly not least, an old friend of the program from Waconia, Representative Jim Nash.

Representative Nash, tell the viewers a little bit about yourself.

- Thank you, Justice Anderson.

Glad to be here.

I have lost count as to how many times I've been on, but will point out that I was not invited to be on the opening lineup this year, and I did shed tears, so.

(participant laughs) I'm Representative Jim Nash.

I represent District 48A, which is really Central Carver County.

I live in the City of Waconia.

I served as Waconia's mayor prior to joining the legislature.

I currently serve as the GOP Whip in the House and the co-chair of State Government Finance.

I'm on Ways and Means, the Housing Committee, Rules, and Fraud Committee, and just have had a very busy session myself with all the different responsibilities that I just described.

But always happy to be on the show.

Love hearing the feedback, and love the questions at the end.

- Representative Nash, as an old city attorney, I appreciate your background as a mayor, that really is retail politics at its most retail.

Can you tell our viewers when you were first elected to the legislature?

- So I was first elected to the legislature in the election of 2014, began serving in 2015.

- Yeah, I thought it was about a decade.

So yes, we're delighted to have you.

Well, so let's begin our program this evening by discussing what each of our members thought the accomplishments of the session were, and maybe what was left on the cutting room floor that perhaps should be addressed in the future.

And let's start with you, Representative Nash, as our veteran legislator here.

If you could address that for us, give us your view of the session.

- Yeah, thank you.

Well, as many of you heard, we have some fraud here in the State of Minnesota.

And I was very pleased that we were able to get the Office of Inspector General Bill passed into law.

And as Representative Pursell will attest, it is not often that we like to praise our Senate counterparts.

(participant laughs) It hurts a little sometimes, but they passed it last year, and then it was transmitted to the House, it came to the committee that I'm the chair on, and it took us four attempts to get it passed out of committee.

And, you know, there were some roadblocks and log jams, and things like that.

But I think that what the people of Minnesota will recognize is that in order to properly address the issue of fraud, also begin implementing some of the policies that we've passed in the law to prevent fraud, but to generally be an overseer of the things that go on in the State of Minnesota, an OIG with independent appointment capabilities and an independent law enforcement organization is an exceptionally important thing for the State of Minnesota when we are looking at billions of dollars of fraud.

And we just cannot allow that to persist.

We have to take it seriously.

And I was very proud to have been one of the key figures in shepherding it through the process and getting it to the floor for a vote.

- Representative Pursell, your thoughts on what was accomplished, maybe what is yet to be done?

Some thought about the fraud, the OIG bill?

The floor is yours.

- Sure.

So I did not work as closely on this issue as I know Representative Nash has been.

I know that there's a lot of different places where we are seeing private entities taking advantage of public dollars.

And that is of great concern to, I know, every single person on this call, every person who works in the legislature to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

And I think the more that we outsource and contract and engage third parties in the work, there's more opportunity for fraudsters to suddenly create a business, and then grab a government contract.

I mean, we're especially seeing that on the federal level really concerningly.

So as proactive as we can be here in Minnesota, I am all for that.

- Senator Frentz, let's look back at the session, what was accomplished, what's left to be done?

Floor is yours.

- I appreciate that.

I agree with much of what's been said.

And Representative Nash, that's the point I would make, that I hope most Minnesotans find interesting about the OIG bill is that it passed the Senate.

I'm glad with the result.

I think the average Minnesotan, and I mean those people that don't really know the name of their state senator, and they kind of don't care, will understand that what we're doing is say, "We, like other states, have a problem, and let's address it."

And to those that said the bill had some elements of redundancy, you know, I would say, for a point.

And that's, I think, what the average Minnesotan would want, is a little more attention to fraud and not a little less.

And if we find out in a year or two that we've gone so far that we can walk back some of those commitments on the OIG staffing enforcement, whatever, you'll find legislators glad to have that problem.

So I think that was probably one of the big stories.

And I honestly don't remember Senator Jasinski's vote, but to the point Representative Nash made, we passed it 60 to 7.

And a personal note my seat made as the chief author of that bill, Senator Heather Gustafson.

And she preached the bipartisan nature of that approach.

So I think that's a win for Minnesota.

I think it was a win for bipartisanship.

And to your larger question, Barry, I think there's a little bit of a hint of bipartisan success in what just happened in the last month or so, some things that we did agree on.

And where I come from, you know, there's some rural, we have 2,000 family farms.

Where I live in North Mankato, it's a little bit like Bloomington or White Bear Lake.

And then we have this big university in a bit of a downtown.

So a little bit of everything in my district.

And I have long been, you know, of the opinion that they would like to see a little more bipartisanship than a little less.

The other things that happened, no big secret, a $1.2 billion bonding bill.

That's a big success.

It takes into account working men and women.

That's so bipartisan, you need three-fifths in both chambers.

I applaud all four caucuses in getting that done.

I'm a big one for, if you wanna vote no, I don't wanna give away my secrets, John, but I've been saying, those that say, "I can't vote for a bonding bill," I say let's put it up on the board and see how fast your no vote goes up there.

And I think people understood that.

And then the property tax relief is one that I'm a big supporter of.

I think that had some bipartisan elements.

It was something that wasn't clear we were gonna get done with about a month ago.

You know, property taxes don't care if you've had a bad day or if you've lost your job.

And I think there's already great pressure.

I think the reasons are both state and federal.

And we're gonna see a lot of property taxes increase.

And I like the message that we sent by saying part of our global deal, if you will, is some property tax relief.

The things we didn't do are evident.

We didn't take action on gun safety, school safety, mental health.

I think we should have.

And my district has long been torn on the question of an assault weapons and magazine capacity ban.

But I was a yes vote.

I think things are changing.

And at the end of the day, regardless of your political party, we want less people to be shot.

Other things that fell by the wayside are just part of that grand, you know, show that we put on in a non-budget year.

(hands rubbing) Looking forward to it.

How'd I do?

- Yeah.

Very good, very good.

Senator Jasinski, your thoughts on the recently concluded session?

What's accomplished?

What was left?

And any useful observations you'd like to share with us?

Floor is yours.

- Sure.

Well, thank you.

And I would echo, a lot of my prior, or my counterparts in the legislature, OIG was a big thing getting that done.

I did vote in favor of that, obviously, when we did a bipartisan vote last year, so Nick knows that.

Good to know that, that I would be all in favor of that.

Transportation, bonding, for me, bonding is huge.

The needs that our state has, infrastructure, water, clean water, waste water, our colleges, our university, transportation, had a huge amount in there.

So I think it was a great bill.

I've always been a big proponent of the bonding bill.

I've served on that all 10 years.

So I've traveled just about every corner and cranny of Minnesota to see those needs.

So I think that's huge for Minnesota.

I will tell you, I authored the bill to reduce license tab fees, which was part of that bonding bill.

We negotiated to get that bonding bill in there with those fees.

Affordability is a big thing that I hear in my district.

Again, property tax increases, license tab increases.

Minnesota in 2023 passed the largest, most expensive license tab fees in the nation.

Not a second or third, they're the most expensive license tabs in the nation on a new car.

And that's hitting people hard.

I just got my license tabs renewed for $1052.

That's a lot of money.

And I hear that a lot across the district.

Now, I wanna remind people, we did not take money away from roads and bridges.

We took that money from the general fund.

So we prioritized it towards transportation.

So that was a huge thing.

I'm hearing lots of people very, very happy about that.

Again, between property tax increases and license tab increases, that's been a big thing.

That's the two big things that I've been involved with in bonding and transportation.

We also had a cost participation policy that got passed through, which is gonna be much better on our cities and our counties as far as the MnDOT project comes through their community, that was initiated by MnDOT, that will limit the amount of expenses that they have to pay.

That's a game-changer in Minnesota.

I will tell you, I'm hearing that from county engineers, city engineers.

That is huge.

The one thing that I was a little bit frustrated, we tried to delay the greenhouse gas emissions requirements.

We are hearing from MnDOT, from county engineers, city engineers, that's gonna be expensive.

You're gonna see 3% more costs for those road projects, which are so important to rural Minnesota.

We need those roads.

So that's a big thing.

And not only is it gonna make it more expensive, it's gonna delay of those getting approved through requirements.

If anything in the STIP, or the Statewide Transportation Information Plan, is in place, they're there.

But anything that is not in that plan is subject to all these new requirements, which is gonna be very expensive.

So that's the big thing that I can talk about.

But again, affordability and infrastructure are the things that I worked on this session.

- So I wanna go to the bonding bill, because that is a constitutionally described priority of the legislature.

It is typically the priority of the so-called off-year session.

Senator Jasinski, you mentioned it.

So let me start with you.

Are there particular provisions in that bonding bill that you wanna bring to the attention of the public?

I wanna say, in passing, before I turn the microphone and turn the floor over to you, that I had the privilege of speaking at the graduation of the College of Liberal Arts and the Science and Technology School at the University of Minnesota this past year, at least in part, I think, because of some work that was done that resulted in the remodeling of Fraser Hall, where I went to law school years ago, and has now been turned over to the science education program at the U. And that was a very expensive project, took many years, and I think all of the members of this panel had an opportunity to participate in that project.

And it is of enormous benefit to the people of the State of Minnesota.

I think that's something, I mean, it replaces Smith Hall, which my son's wife's grandfather and my son both went to school at Smith Hall, you know, over a 70-year period.

So it was time to do something about it.

And that's the kind of thing that you see in a bonding bill that's really important.

So with that very long lead-up that's probably unnecessary, Senator Jasinski, talk a little bit about the bonding bill.

Anything specific that comes to mind for you?

And then I'm gonna go around the table to everybody else.

Floor is yours.

- Sure.

Well, I think the HEAPR money is very important to maintain the colleges and universities we have, and make sure the roofs are in the watertight, the windows, the furnaces- - And tell our viewers what HEAPR means.

Tell 'em what that means.

- It is basically easiest understood is maintenance for their facility.

So it's long-term roofs, windows, furnaces, mechanical systems to make sure we maintain what we have.

It's not new projects.

So that's very, very important.

We have to maintain what we have.

And I think that's the biggest thing, most easily understood.

And those are important.

Nick, I don't know what happened with Armstrong Hall.

I know that was a big thing.

I attended Armstrong.

If they got a line item for that or not.

I guess I just, trying to get catch up on that, but they did not.

That's a big issue there.

We wanted to get that done.

I was in favor of that.

I actually attended Armstrong Hall when I was at Mankato State, or Minnesota State Mankato now, but I'm alumni from over there.

So I think that was important.

The clean water and wastewater.

There's a lot of facilities across the state that need help with I&I, or infill/infiltration, where the actual rainwater's getting into sanitary sewer and overwhelming our plants.

I got 9.9 million for the City of Waseca, and 8.9 of that was for I&I, which is so important.

They were actually discharging raw sewage into Clear Lake in Waseca when they had a large rain event.

So that's really important across the state.

And then the transportation projects, because we did not have a transportation bill this year.

Those transportation projects are very important, not only to suburban Minnesota, but rural Minnesota.

So those were some really key factors in there.

And then, again, we tied the license tab fee reduction back a year as part of the bonding bill to make sure we got the affordability issue in there.

So great bonding projects.

And very well-distributed between HEAPR, water infrastructure, and roads and bridges.

I think it was a good, balanced bill, one that I was proud to vote yes for.

- Representative Pursell, you mentioned in your introductory remarks your focus on water issues.

And so maybe this is a good jumping-off point to turn to you on projects in the bonding bill and the bonding bill generally, and what other comments you might have about that.

- Sure thing.

Well, it just so happens, one of my communities, the small town of Lonsdale, Minnesota, had never asked for a capital investment project before.

They're really trying to build out both residential and business districts.

And they're pretty close to Interstate 35.

And so a big barrier was a need for a water tower on the south side of town.

They've been doing a lot of investing in that project.

And so was really happy to get not quite $5 million for that project to really help that town grow and support the growth.

Also, Northfield has a building that serves, it's like one in four people of Rice County, 'cause it holds our senior center, which is really, really popular.

It's called 50 North.

Also hosts the Community Action Center, where our food shelf is, as well as other services for people who kind of don't know where else to turn.

And that building needs a lot of those same things as Senator Jasinski was talking about.

It needs new roof, windows, insulation, et cetera.

And so $3 million will go to that in my community as well.

I was sort of piggybacking on the last question on what Representative Nash about the OIG and fraud, but I think some other really big wins is saving HCMC, Hennepin County Medical Center- - Putting on an endorsement.

(Kristi faintly speaking) - A massive win.

Whoever doesn't have their screen muted.

(laughs) Then I know Northfield Hospital, we send flights with people where they have really, you know, complications or burns, or things like that, and they need to go to that level one trauma center.

So HCMC supports every single community, every county in the state.

And so it was really important that we came to a bipartisan solution for longer term, not just one year, but working on the governance structure for that entity, because we know how important that is for the health and safety of Minnesotans as well as the workers.

I think also, I'm really proud that we came through for the counties, as they asked us to, for their computer systems.

They're using that like black screen with the green blinking cursor for some of their human services things.

It's almost impossible for those programs to be able to talk to each other, the additional reporting that we're gonna need to be doing with the federal government.

Those systems couldn't even speak to each other.

So that's a really big deal to help out our counties and everyone.

And again, try to streamline to save money, and prevent fraud in doing so.

- This would be a great place to talk about whether or not some of those computer programs or computer workstations, if you could play "Pong" on them.

But you'd have to be of a certain age to understand that, so we won't go there.

Senator Frentz, your thoughts about the bonding bill and related topics?

- Well, I actually remember "Pong."

So it's a good thing this show isn't gonna veer into video games, but for those younger members of the panel, "Pong" was the original video game.

It had the sophistication of the black screen with the white paddles, and the ball went back and forth, and that was it.

The bonding bill was a big success.

Like I said, part of the story of this session, and I think we'll have to figure it out, and voters will have to say what they think, but the bonding bill is bipartisan.

And Senator Jasinski, Representative Pursell mentioned a lot of the highlights already.

So a couple things about the process, and then my district, and I'll get out of your way.

First of all, I thought it went really well.

Senator Jasinski, you can, you know, disagree with me, but I thought the bonding leads were talking, as best we could tell, they were making progress.

I forgot to mention this, but I serve as the vice chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

So we put together a cash bill and a GO bill.

So I thought that was a success that you don't always get.

Locally, more of same, as with all of you, you tend to know the projects that are personal in your district.

And there were two that I wanna flag.

I have a community that I'm very proud to represent, Lafayette, Minnesota.

It's about 30 miles west of my house in Nicollet County.

$3 million water project.

Really need it.

They cannot build it with a population of 400, 450 residents without tripling of their water rates.

That's included.

That was bipartisan, in that I have a Republican House rep in that half of my district, that's the rural half.

And then the community of Eagle Lake on the other side had manganese in their water for years.

We were hearing about the public health aspects.

And so all of us have districts we're proud of, all of us have presumed got bonding projects.

But those are the kinds of things that Minnesotans are saying, "Thank you, really appreciate it."

And for the communities that had to come back over and over, it just kind of sends a signal like maybe the state is listening on some of these projects.

And the total water infrastructure was 420 million.

And I can't resist, since Barry got the connection to Mankato, and Senator Jasinski flagged it, there are things that don't happen in bonding, and Armstrong Hall at Minnesota State Mankato was one.

And I'll give you the context, it's very simple.

All the apportionment of the 1.2 billion has to take place first before you can say, "This is our roads and bridges," or, "This is what MN State getting."

MN State's allocation for HEAPR was $64 million.

Well intention, good money.

And I supported that.

Armstrong Hall is 95 million, one project on one of the 20-plus campuses, and it wasn't funded.

And I don't think we could go to the other senators and legislators and representatives, and say, "Look, you're not gonna get your smaller project, because we need a whole boatload for this one campus."

I did get some pushback, Senator Jasinski, because Minnesota State Mankato was seen as a thriving, you know, growing campus.

And so for the other MN State senators, they weren't quite as anxious to build up Mankato either even further, to which I said, "Wait till we build the new football stadium," but that's a different show.

- All right, Representative Nash, bonding bills?

- Yeah, so sorry for the noise.

Actually funny, my cat tapped the screen of the phone and put on the news, so I apologize for that.

But I think- - Well, I will say that- - One of the things that I- - Representative Nash, we have had animals that have joined the program in the past, and we've also had wandering children.

So, you know- - Ah.

- These inadvertent surprises are there to liven the program up.

(Jim laughs) So it's all good.

Floor is yours.

- Yeah, so I think for me, the bonding bill is notable for what it had, but also sometimes for what it didn't have.

In past bonding bills, you'd see things that, in my estimation, really had no business being in a bonding bill.

There were things like the floor to an opera house in Outstate Minnesota and other things.

For me to put up my vote for the bonding bill this year, it had to be really things that are made out of concrete and rebar, and that clean water.

So that was a very important thing that I commend the bonding chairs for doing.

Here in my district and in part of my previous district, there were projects that were mission-critical for them to either grow or avert catastrophe.

Here in Waconia, there's a Highway 5 project, and Highway 5 is a major arterial for Waconia.

And it's very dangerous, because back in the day, it was built without shoulders.

So you're driving along the highway.

If there's ice, next thing, you could be in the ditch, and there was no shoulder to help you with that.

But working in conjunction with my Senate member, Senator Coleman, we also secured some money for Laketown Township, which had probably the dumbest design ever.

They ran a sewer pipe through the bottom of a lake back in the day, and it is on the verge of breaking.

So there's that.

And then in the previous district that I had before redistricting, the City of New Germany needed a water treatment plant upgrade in order to build new homes.

They have, I think, 125 new homes plotted, but they could not even build one because they are unable to handle the wastewater.

And thinking back to my municipal day as the mayor, one of the things is, when people flush, they expect things to go away.

That wasn't always possible.

So we have to be able to address those things.

But I think, again, bonding bills are sometimes known for what's in them and what's not in them.

I was very pleased to see that there were no silly projects in the bonding bill that have been there in the years past.

So I think that's a very important thing.

- Representative Nash, I wanna move to a topic that Representative Pursell highlighted for us, and we'll give her another shot at this too as well.

But it's the HCMC rescue bill.

And it's part of a larger conversation involving healthcare in Minnesota.

This program has featured, over many years, conversations about particularly nursing homes, extended care facilities of various types.

There are just all kinds of challenges.

I wonder if you could take a few moments to talk about the HCMC rescue bill.

- Sure.

- What your thought are about that, and what about those challenges, you know, down the road?

Obviously, this is not a, for our viewers, should understand this, this off-year session is typically not a budget session.

So typically, budget issues will be addressed with the new legislature when it starts work on January 2nd, 2027.

But obviously, something needed to be done in the Hennepin County Medical Center context, HCMC, but it just highlights these medical issues as something requiring further attention.

So let's start with you.

- Yeah.

- And talk a little bit about that issue, Representative Nash.

- Sure.

Well, first, I'd say that one of the biggest and best takeaways from the bill, and we can get into some of the details of the bill, but HCMC is perhaps one of the most important hospitals in the state from a burn unit perspective.

It's a level one trauma center, and it is a vital asset to the State of Minnesota.

I don't think you'll get any disagreement from Republicans or Democrats on that fact.

And I would say that every legislator, of all 201 of us, everybody knows somebody or is related to somebody who has had lifesaving care at that facility.

I think the notable part is that what we've learned is that county boards should not run hospitals.

You know, that would be a lot like, in my world, I work in cybersecurity, having somebody who just passed third-grade coloring running (chuckles) the computer infrastructure of a major organization.

The county board is tasked with some level of oversight.

But having served on a hospital board here in Waconia, you want people who are singularly focused on how the hospital is run, balancing the load of commercially insured and/or publicly insured people, making sure that we're trying to get to a balance there.

I think the notable thing too on the HCMC is that it was largely financed with some projects that were canceled, some trained projects and some other things, that what we were able to do with our colleagues.

And it really, in the House, it really was a bipartisan effort, because it took, as Kristi can attest, you had to put up one vote to get something moving.

It's important that we realize that this is a policy that all of us agreed was absolutely important for the State of Minnesota.

So you'll see some governance oversight that previously didn't exist, and that we're going to be requiring of the board and of the management of HCMC to provide way more information back to the legislature than there ever has been coming back, because now, the legislature has made some investments to help them continue forward.

As to what does it mean long-term, I think what you'll see is, with a little more presence of people who are, one, healthcare management professionals, which is what's gonna be one of the requirements, but also some oversight, I think, and somebody can correct me, there is gonna be quarterly reports coming to the legislature.

And what we'll be able to do is, thank you, John, for, or Senator Jasinski, for shaking your head.

We're gonna be able to see things happening or not happening long before the yearly or every six-month reporting period that we've seen previously.

It's important that we do this.

And I think that what people in Minnesota are gonna see is that they can rest a little easier knowing that the major burn unit in one of the level one trauma centers has been kept alive, but with a whole lot more governance than it's ever seen.

- Senator, Representative Pursell, I'm sorry, I either promoted you or demoted you there.

Sorry about that.

Representative Pursell, could you tee this issue up for us, maybe some additional comments on HCMC?

Floor is yours.

- Thank you.

Yeah, so I am in my second year serving on the Health Committee in the House, which is a new committee for me.

And I actually pivoted from vice chair of the Ag Committee to joining the Health Committee, because we know that our rural communities and health, those issues are very, very closely tied.

We're seeing rural hospitals closing all over the place, or consolidating, or reducing services.

And as I mentioned right here in Northfield, we have a municipally owned hospital and clinic system.

That is rare.

Especially, you know, we're seeing metro conglomerates, we're seeing a big four-letter corporation from my hometown of Rochester kind of, you know, creeping into our area, snatching up some of these places, and closing them.

And we're seeing, you know, what I heard over these two years on the Health Committee, is the challenges that the hospitals themselves have.

Because if people come in an ambulance, or people come to the door, they don't get turned away, regardless of if they are insured or if they have crappy health insurance, even if they're paying through the nose for it.

It's often a way that these systems lose money, is by taking care of people.

And so we're seeing, you know, the big insurance companies in between making a pretty penny, but it's costing more on families, talk about affordability and the stress level, what's costing more for families, and it's costing more for hospitals when they just aren't being reimbursed.

So a thing that I am also really pleased to have in this HCMC deal, it also includes other critical access hospitals will be able to potentially access additional funds for this uncompensated care.

We're saying we can't just tell the critical hospital, you know, "You need to take in patients with more private health insurance," when maybe they tried to go to a different hospital and have been rejected.

And basically, HCMC is that safety-net hospital, they are the catch-all.

And so if other hospitals are struggling with their finances as well, there's a pool of money that we've made at the state for them.

But they have to be treating some of these most needy Minnesotans that HCMC has been treating over time.

And so I'm really pleased about that.

And we have a deadline for that new governance structure, which is January of next year.

So they'll have to be putting that together rather quickly, which was the idea, and to give people stability, and to know that that critical piece of our healthcare infrastructure will continue to exist.

- Senator Jasinski, HCMC healthcare, generally, your observations.

- Well, I don't deal a lot with HHS, but I will tell you, the rural hospitals are hurting very much as well.

Faribault just had to close their birthing center, and that's a huge thing for a town of 26, 28,000 people, and not have a birthing center.

That makes people frustrated.

And so they're experiencing the same issues that Representative Pursell talked about.

Faribault's had some issues with that.

So I think the rural hospitals are hurting as well.

So we need to make sure that we're serving our rural population as well.

You have to drive a lot farther in rural Minnesota to get to a hospital than you do in the metro.

And again, just the example of a birthing center not located in your town of, you know, 28,000 people is concerning.

And so we have to address rural Minnesota.

I know, as Representative Pursell said, HCMC is the stopgap of all those things.

But I'll tell you, rural Minnesota is hurting just as bad, and it's more dispersed across the state.

- Senator Frentz?

- I see two issues.

I'm satisfied with what we did for HCMC, I get the $500 million reserve.

And that is, as other legislators have pointed out, just a absolutely must-have facility to catch those patients that aren't otherwise gonna get treatment.

And that's before you talk about their expertise in the burn center, which is nation-leading.

I think the other issue though, Barry, and I hear you teeing this up, is the question of healthcare in Minnesota and in the country.

What I see is healthcare becoming more and more expensive because we provide more of it.

That's actually a good thing.

We do treatments that 50 years ago, we wouldn't have done, we save lives that wouldn't have been saved, but it costs a lot of money.

To Senator Jasinski's point, we have, in my neck of the woods, the St.

Peter Hospital, it's in the red.

This bill will provide some funding for them, but it's a stopgap measure, it's not a conclusion.

And we've been saying for 10 years that we're either gonna reduce the number of people that are covered, or we're gonna reduce the essential benefits, or we're gonna reduce the reimbursement for the essential benefits, or it's a mathematical certainty the cost of healthcare is not coming down.

And if you want an example, all of us are federal taxpayers, where we owe $38 trillion.

And H.R.1, the federal tax bill, makes changes I would never have voted for.

But it recognizes we're on an unsustainable path with the cost of healthcare.

So I think the country and the state are soon gonna be asking the question, "What fundamental change in healthcare are we gonna make?"

And if you look at the other countries that point to the United States and say they have a crappy system, the United Kingdom, Canada, where they have universal healthcare, I would say if you wanna wait 10 months for a hip X-ray, if you wanna have a certain amount of treatment that is not provided, then those would be great options.

But I think we're running out of time.

And in my district, I mentioned those 2,000 family farms, they are overwhelmingly in the individual market, which is the most expensive.

And here comes the removal of the ACA subsidies.

So they are gonna start saying, "We cannot afford it."

And all of us know, not treating serious illness is more expensive, letting things go by the wayside, letting care not be provided costs a lot of money.

So I see a reckoning coming.

I don't know that it's coming here in the next 20 minutes, but we're gonna have to ask some tough questions.

And great leaders make tough decisions.

Kicking the can down the road, for example, on our rural hospitals with $50 million is simply not a sustainable solution.

- I'll say, I've been on a waitlist for about eight months to see a kidney specialist.

So it's not like the system we have right now is perfect either.

And absolutely, we can work within the bounds of what we have while we work on something better.

- So the second half of the legislative session, of course, is a more limited agenda, but we will now be heading into the budget year for 2027-2028.

We always get questions from viewers about what do our panelists think are the priorities in the next legislative session.

And of course, that's the next budget session.

So I'm gonna combine two things here, because I've got a couple of, I've got a question about what do our panelists think about the budget year, but I've also got a viewer who wanted to know, did we do anything with DNR issues in this session?

So they aren't really related to each other, but I'm gonna package 'em together.

We're gonna start with you, Senator Jasinski.

Can you talk a little bit about what you see as the one or two or three big issues that you're gonna be talking with your colleagues and your opponent and others about over the next several months, and that the legislature will face in January?

And did this session touch on any DNR issues?

- Sure.

Well, you know, the thing that I'm hearing again is affordability, and I've talked about it before, just this license tab setback of one year.

I'd like to go long-term to see what we can do to reduce those rates.

Minnesota does not have to be the highest rates in the nation.

So we're gonna see if we can accelerate the existing auto parts sales tax and prioritize where some of that money is going.

I think that's the one thing.

I continue to hear paid family leave is an issue with our businesses.

I'm a real estate broker, I deal with businesses.

The paid family leave has been causing a huge workforce issue.

I know my other counterparts across the aisle aren't gonna agree with that, but that's what I'm here.

I deal with businesses every single day.

And their frustration, the workforce issues, I hear it in the schools.

We're hiring substitutes to substitute for teachers.

And I will tell you, back in the day, when I had a substitute teacher, it wasn't the best learning day.

We need consistency with our teachers there.

We're seeing our scores going down both in math and reading.

And I think this is only gonna complicate the issue with the paid family leave, and having so many people out, and having a constant transition of teachers in our grade schools and high schools, I don't think that's gonna be beneficial.

DNR issues, I haven't been involved with as much.

I don't sit on that committee, so I'm not specific on the specifics of that.

So I'll let my other counterparts talk about that.

But I will tell you, the affordability issue is the big thing.

A lot of things have been shifted down to county and cities.

County property tax and taxes are going up tremendously.

I think of my parcels that I have, we are seeing about an 18% increase, you know, for our people on fixed incomes across Minnesota, which there's a lot of 'em in my district.

That is almost pricing them out of their homes.

And that's a huge concern.

So we have to look at those cost shifts.

Budgeting is gonna be tough next year.

It's gonna be a complicated year.

Remember back, we had an $18 billion surplus, government was increased by 40%, and a lot of those costs have been shifted down.

So I think the affordability is gonna be a huge issue next year.

So thanks.

- Representative Pursell, your thoughts upcoming session?

What issues do you see?

And if anything on the DNR question?

- Sure thing.

Well, I guess, to start with the affordability question, that's absolutely on my mind.

I am a renter.

I used to be a homeowner.

I may not ever afford that again.

So not only did we pass some property tax relief, there's also some renter relief.

You must have a much nicer car than me, Senator Jasinski.

My tab fees are not anywhere close to what that is.

But that will be a nice little breathing room for folks.

I mean, a lot of the things that I think, you know, have been identified as things that are big cost issues are not because of the state government.

We're seeing, you know, Senator Frentz talked about the H.R.1, you know, in Washington, DC, and how that's made those subsidies for healthcare go away.

We're looking at, you know, increasing costs of elder care, childcare, healthcare.

Those are massive, massive line items on a family budget.

As someone as a part-time legislator, it's pretty hard to get another job.

And I know how important paid family medical leave is to my friends who are having parents that they have to take care of at the end of life, or who are just having a baby, or welcoming an adopted child into their families.

I also have small business friends who are relieved they get to offer this to their employees, 'cause otherwise, their employees just matriculate to bigger corporations.

So they feel they're able be able to compete with those other employers.

So absolutely, affordability is an issue.

Things like tariffs and illegal wars in the Middle East aren't helping with the prices of gas or things like that either.

So we're trying to figure out as a state how we can help there.

And as the co-chair of the Environment Committee, I'm really proud that we passed an LCCMR bill that has the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

There's lands bills in there.

LCCMR stands for the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources.

So there's a lot of projects that will be in all of our districts across the state, providing lands and recreation to every Minnesotan.

So not a lot happening in the environment world, but some important work happening there.

- Senator Frentz?

- Well, first of all, we're going into deficit in the next biennium if you believe the projections that are our best effort.

So a $3 billion deficit is what Minnesota's looking at.

Maybe things will be better.

Those projections are not always dead-on.

But that's what we're talking about here, folks.

Senator Jasinski points out the 2023 budget, where we had 18 billion in surplus.

First of all, we had that, of course, because we failed to do some things in 2022.

That's a different Zoom call, Senator Jasinski.

But we also cut the budget from 71 billion to 67 billion in the last budgeting process.

I believe that's a 3% decrease.

And I think some of us on the Democrat side were persuaded.

That's very important.

We have a question to ask too about our state's, I would say, balance between the employee and the employer.

It's not a big secret that I authored a bill to make changes to paid family and medical leave.

I thought a turning of the dial back a little bit might've been a safer place to start the benefit structure in the number of weeks.

But that didn't go through.

As a small business owner and one of the precious few in the DFL Senate right now, like the only one, I always say, "You can't have good jobs without good employers."

So I think we need to work to find that balance.

And a bellwether for that is that the recent revenue announcement many of you saw actually showed a slight decrease in the corporate franchise tax receipts.

In other words, we're going backwards on the money that our businesses are paying in taxes.

That's a sign that I'm making as much money.

And I think we have to be careful to try to create some balance.

Senator Jasinski, if you like Goldilocks porridge, you know, the just right, not too much regulations, but not too little.

And I think we're gonna have to look at that.

I was heartened by one of the Democrat candidates for governor, Amy Klobuchar, who said, "We need to support businesses big and small."

And I think that's a prevailing sentiment in my mind about how we're gonna get through this.

And even if we don't get any better, a $3 billion cut is gonna go right to the issues we're talking about, including healthcare, including education, which is really important.

And if we're having trouble with substitute teachers now, I don't think a budget cut for our school districts is likely to make that any better.

To Representative Pursell's point on the Environment Trust Fund, that was 102 million, just exactly what I think Minnesotans do want us to do.

And after all, we collect that money, we might as well spend it on things.

And I think that process for that is about right, goes through a selection process, comes to the two chambers.

And so long story short, Barry, there's real work to do.

And for those that are reelected, it's not gonna be like some of the past sessions where there's a big surplus, and it's a question of where to spend it.

By the way, a tip of the cap to Senator Jasinski for being on the Finance Committee, joined in the last biennium by my colleague and friend, Senator Rich Draheim, who's retiring, you gotta have all voices at the table to get it right in Finance.

I don't know much, but I know that much.

- Representative Nash, your thoughts on all of these complex topics?

- You bet.

I'll start off with the DNR thing.

The only thing that I know is, I was able to pass, in the first year of the biennium, a seasonless bass season in the State of Minnesota, which means that you can target bass at any time of the year.

And doing some calculations, that's gonna add enough days, that we figured it's gonna add about 20 million or more dollars into the economy of the State of Minnesota by people who are coming to chase bass on our fantastic lakes.

So beyond that, I have no idea to the caller's question.

But here's what I do know, as Senator Frentz said, we are looking at a structural deficit, and it's for fiscal '27, which, for the politically astute in the State of Minnesota, starts sooner than it doesn't.

It starts in July.

What we're looking at is, we have to make decisions to address that.

And I think that we need to look at a programmatic reduction in the license tab formula.

If you look at the competitiveness of Minnesota from a statewide business property tax, personal income tax, we are in the low 40s, which is not where you wanna be.

I think we were 44th or 46th in competitive tax structure, behind Massachusetts.

And I don't wanna be there, I don't wanna be anything like Massachusetts.

But we're also looking at paid family medical costs.

And look, I know that unless we have a GOP trifecta, we're not going to be able to make wide-sweeping changes.

But I would appeal to all of my DFL colleagues to look at how this is impacting businesses in your district.

I think we have to look at the size of the number of employees as a potential exclusion to add that into the formula.

Because if you, I think Senator Jasinski has a family-owned business, if you and, you know, your family have, I don't know, six, seven employees, but four of them are part of the family, you're now required to be in this.

But we should see if we can find a way to make some exceptions on that.

Overall, though, I think the reduction that Senator Frentz said that we did this second year of the biennium, everybody should say thank you to House Republicans, because we drove that down in conversations in the first year of last biennium, in the second year of this biennium.

We fundamentally said, "We are putting Minnesota on a diet, and we are gonna be reducing the cost of government, because people cannot afford it."

There are some other things that we need to look at, but we have to have all legislators being willing to roll up their sleeves and make a concerted effort to listen to the people in your district as to how they are not able to afford things like vacations or a new car, or make a purchase of your home.

These are important things that we have to deal with.

And we have to make sure that the government of the State of Minnesota is not pricing people out of the market and causing them to leave the state.

- So typically, when we do an end-of-the-year program, we'll ask about constitutional amendments.

I don't believe there were any this year that went on the ballot.

Am I correct about that?

- So there's one.

- Then the second thing that we all- Go ahead.

- There will be one.

- Please.

- There is one.

(Kristi laughs) - Oh, all right, all right.

I missed this.

- You know, Kristi- - Go ahead.

Representative- - You got there first, Kristi.

Go ahead and tell 'em about this one.

- Sure.

Well, it blends education and environment.

So there will be a constitutional question to the voters this year in November about using more of the school trust land funds, and giving more- - Oh, yes.

I do see something about this.

- Yeah, so it's more dollars per student on the formula.

There's no change in the additional taxes.

It's just a way.

Right now, we're pulling about 2.5% of that lump sum that is in the bank.

But we have to ask the voters if we can increase that.

And the proposal will be about 4.5%, so going from 60-some dollars to 90-some dollars per student.

- Yeah, that was authored by- - There you go.

- Representative Spencer Igo from the Iron Range in the House.

I forget who the Senate author was.

There are days I forget we have a Senate, but I don't remember that, who the Senate author was, but (laughs)- - I'll Let you handle that one, Senator Jasinski.

(participants laughing) - I'm trying to think of who it was, and I can't remember off the top of my head either.

Do you?

- So- - Right at you, I remember that.

- Senator Kunesh.

- Yeah, Senator Kunesh.

- I think it was Senator Kunesh.

- Yeah.

- Yeah.

- Senator.

- And then the other- - I didn't know whether there was a senator or not.

I'll let you handle that one.

- Senate Republicans didn't ask for a two-third supermajority vote on that.

And we got that turned down.

And we offered that amendment, and that got turned down.

Unfortunately, we thought we might get the vote on that.

I think we should be a supermajority of the vote to do that.

That was our belief.

And we did not get that vote.

- So we only have about a minute and a half left.

And I wanna just touch on one thing that sort of the legislative wonks are always interested in, which is, my impression is, we saw fewer combined omnibus bills, more individual bills.

Does that set a precedent for the future?

And let's start with you, Representative Nash, very quickly.

Am I reading that correctly?

- Yeah.

- Does it set a precedent for the future.

- No, you absolutely did it.

As one of the Republican leaders in the House, we made a decision to have single-subject bills, and I think it went well.

Now, there were some folks who didn't necessarily like it, but I think that the public really appreciated it.

And, you know, one of the single-subject bills that I'll give my friend Nick Frentz a chuck on the shoulder, I had a bill that we put into the pensions bill that made some cleanup for the SBI super piece of policy.

Single bill, flew out a committee, everybody voted for it, and it was a very good thing.

But in abstract, more single-subject bills, very popular on the floor of the House.

There were days that we had 20 or 25 bills on the floor.

But that's what we get paid to do.

And I think that the mind numbness of omnibus bills, nobody likes.

- I'll say- - Representative Pursell?

- Yeah, it's a lot easier- - Go ahead.

- Single-subject bills, if we have time to do it.

We are a citizen part-time legislature.

And so we had 90 days this session.

So would love to see more of that.

But seems like there's not enough time.

- Senator Frentz, you're a process guy like me.

Is this better process or not?

- Yeah, it is a little bit better, and I think it relies on some good faith.

My two cents is that this year, the Senate was both sides of the aisle, willing to move stuff along, there was more floor time, and therefore, we were able to do a little bit more on the single-subject area.

Thank you for your work on that pension matter.

Representative Nash, the State Board of Investment is a jewel and misunderstood and underappreciated by a mile.

So long story short, I think we'll see more of it.

Where you run into trouble is where individual legislators, and I don't see any on this call, but it does happen, I know you're surprised, filibuster.

And there's a limit when you're in the majority, like the Senate DFL, to how much filibustering we can take before there's gonna have to be some omnibus or some putting us stuff together.

In my opinion, hats off to both Senate GOP and Senate DFL this session.

I thought we had a very small amount of that, and it moved on better, single-subject bills included.

- Senator Jasinski, you get the last 15 seconds on the single subject issue.

Anything you wanna say to our panel and our viewers?

- Sure.

I wanna thank our House Republicans.

I think they're the ones that pushed that.

I think if it wasn't for them, we would've seen more omnibus bills.

So again, we had that stopgap in the House where it was tied.

And I think it was their help to change that.

I think, otherwise, we would've seen omnibus bills again.

We spent many hours in Finance separating those bills apart that we had it put together, so that we could process those bills.

So thanks to House Republicans, thanks to a tied legislature in the House that actually forced that to happen.

- Well, we have run out of time.

I wanna thank our distinguished panel of guests.

I wanna thank you, the viewers, who have joined us during this session year for our programs here on "Your Legislators."

I wanna invite you to return to our programming again next year after January 1, when we'll be back with more "Your Legislators" and more opportunity to ask questions of your legislators.

Thank you very much.

Have a great summer, everybody.

We'll see you in January.

- Thank you.

- [Announcer] "Your Legislators" is made possible by: from the grain bin to the planter, Minnesota Corn builds market opportunities for corn farmers, mncorn.org.

Minnesota Farmers Union, standing for agriculture, working for farmers, on the web at mfu.org.

(cheerful music) (cheerful music continues) (cheerful music continues)