Dear Friends and Neighbors,

 

We are just finishing up on 2 weeks of hearing omnibus bills in the Senate. These are the big budget bills that will determine State spending for the next 2 years. We have only about 3 weeks left in the session, more than enough time for the Democrats to have handshake deals on differences between the House and Senate bills.  

The last major bill to be debated this session will be the Tax Bill.  As a member of the Tax committee, I can tell you first hand that the bill is ugly and disappointing.  Our surplus was built largely on the backs of taxpayers, but they are receiving very little recognition or tax benefit from Democrats. With a $19 billion surplus, you would think Democrats could find more than a paltry $3 billion in tax cuts for a few groups, but the spending spree at the Capitol will prevent broad tax relief for most Minnesotans.

 
The most disappointing thing is that many seniors will continue to be taxed on their Social Security. The Democrats would only agree to cut 39% of the income tax on social security checks. Most people agree that seniors shouldn’t be taxed for a benefit they already paid for.

 
But what really doesn’t make any sense is that the tax bill taxes Minnesota businesses on income not even generated in Minnesota. Remember when Minnesota prided itself on having the headquarters of many large corporations in the state?  Those days are long gone and will be completely gone if these provisions go into effect.  Corporations with markets all over the world will pack up and leave for more reasonable states and take their best-paying jobs with them.  
But in case you thought the only victims of this outrageous bill were big corporations, the little guy will pay heavily too-- license tab fees are going up and so are payroll taxes, impacting every Minnesotan – regardless of income. 

With a $19 billion historic surplus, no Minnesotan should pay higher taxes next year. Democrats now have proposals to increase taxes by  $11 Billion, in addition to the $19 Billion they have already over collected!

Back in 2011-2012 a Local Option Sales Tax for Rochester was passed by the Legislature with a unique revenue-sharing provision for towns in the vicinity of Rochester.  Now that the “Good Neighbor policy” (as Rep. Greg Davids, the author called it) is up for renewal and the terms may be changing significantly.

 
The earlier arrangement defined the qualifying cities as within a 25-mile radius of Rochester and with an Economic Development Authority or a Housing Development Authority that could accept and use the funds for their cities.  At the time, those two characteristics yielded a list of 17 small cities in the Rochester area.  The money was distributed based on population. 

 

The renewal proposal in SF 1811 makes four basic changes:

1.  The defined area is no longer a 25-mile radius but the “Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area” currently defined by the US Census as Olmsted, Wabasha, Fillmore, and Dodge Counties.  This means that some cities in the 25-mile radius in Goodhue, Mower, or Winona Counties would no longer qualify.  For example, Pine Island is right up against the Goodhue/Olmsted border, and a large proportion of its residents work and shop in Rochester, but they would no longer qualify for funds.  Meanwhile, a city in Fillmore County close to the Iowa border could now apply, even if its residents seldom went to Rochester.
2. The Funding mechanism would not be automatic. Instead of getting funds distributed by population, towns would have to apply to a nonprofit business organization, a 501(C)(6) called the Rochester Area Economic Development Incorporated (RAEDI), and have grants or revolving loans approved by the group.
3. The new design opens the $5 Million pot of money to government and non-government entities.  The original design of the Good Neighbor Policy was supposed to help these small cities continue to thrive as Rochester grew as the regional center for any projects approved by RAEDI.  
4. Loans as well as Grants will be the purpose of the money. Instead of a defined program distributing money as grants to these cities, there would be an ongoing revolving loan program. RAEDI would be the loan program administrator and take an administration fee and perhaps charge interest as well (this is not spelled out in the provision). 

I do not agree with these changes.  I presented two amendments to the tax committee, one which would restore the original design of the revenue sharing formula and the other which allowed 3 cities that would be cut from the new program to be part of it.  The mayors of these three cities, St. Charles, Zumbrota, and Pine Island, testified before the tax committee.  The first amendment failed but the second amendment was successful.  Since the provision isn’t in the House bill, it remains to be seen whether the entire provision and my amendment will survive the conference committee process.  

A week ago, the Senate approved a bill that represented a serious bipartisan agreement. It was a bill to honor the contributions of current military members and veterans across Minnesota.  The House similarly passed its bill.  Passing the Veteran’s bill as a standalone bill was something many Veterans and their advocates had asked for, to show bipartisan support for Veterans and not tie the needs of Veterans to a hyper-partisan omnibus bill. 

 

These folks put themselves at risk to protect our freedoms, and we must support them in every way we can, so fortunately, both caucuses in both houses of the legislature were able to come together to do that.  But, there is a final step. There are differences in the bills, but the conference committee chairs met over the weekend, and word is that they expect a quick resolution to a stand alone bill. 

 

Senate Bill highlights:

 

• Increased funding and eligibility for bonuses for members who served during the post-9/11 military era
• A one-time appropriation to honor service members on the fiftieth anniversary of the Vietnam War  
• Funding for a Minnesota Military & Veterans Museum at Camp Ripley
• Continued funding for the three new veteran homes in Bemidji, Montevideo and Preston, which the Legislature originally funded in 2018
• Provide enlistment and retention bonuses to incentivize retention and recruitment.  
• Fund grants for veteran participation in Camp Bliss – a program where eligible veterans receive therapy, transportation, and activities specific to veterans and their families or caretakers. 

 Another important issue for Veterans who have contacted me, that is NOT in the Veterans omnibus bill, has been opposition to new restrictions on e-pull tabs.  As the Democrat majority has a plan to pay off the Vikings Stadium early, partly due to the success of e-pull tab revenue,  the new revenue would no longer be needed.  But the proceeds of e-Pull tabs were a shot in the arm to the struggling charitable gaming organizations, like VFWs and American Legions, who use those proceeds for many different community projects, such as scholarships, sponsorship of community activities, and help to the needy on the local level. 

 

I oppose any changes to e-pull tabs that would make them less successful than they have been.  I have championed lowering taxes on charitable gaming so that these organizations can keep more of their money in the community.  Unfortunately, under Democrat leadership, this is not where we are headed this session, and we need to change course by bringing these issues to the forefront. 

I heard from many of you on the legalization of Marijuana bill. No matter what you think of the legalization of cannabis and the products made from it, this was a bad bill.  The bill authors did not learn any of the lessons from other states, and we’ll probably be learning some of them the hard way at all our cost.  

 

The bill forces cannabis into cities without adequate public safety support, public awareness campaigns, or substance abuse prevention.

 

No matter what Minnesota does, Marijuana remains an illegal Schedule 1 drug under Federal Law, creating a conflict that will lead to complications between federal and state law enforcement and courts.

 

We lack a roadside test for law enforcement to detect when someone is driving under the influence, and the bill did not address this. According to the National Institutes of Health, traffic deaths involving marijuana-impaired drivers increased by 138% and for all drivers by 29% since marijuana was legalized in Colorado. The Governors Highway Safety Association has noted increases in impaired driving cases in Washington since legalization and increases in fatal crashes in Colorado and Washington.

 

On the Senate floor, a Democrat amendment to give cities more control over where and how cannabis sales could be conducted was adopted; however, cities will not be able to impose bans on sales or manufacturing.   At the same time, cities are banning vaping and tobacco products from being sold; cannabis can be sold in any town in Minnesota.

In addition to these problems with the bill, the author made it clear that she wasn’t willing to take seriously the concerns of hemp farmers, who will be subject to more cost and regulation on already thin business margins in a competitive market.  The state government helped encourage farmers to enter this area just a few years ago with incentives to grow industrial hemp, and now they are cutting them off at the knees.  It’s shameful.

Hunters in Southern Minnesota have been restricted from using rifes during deer hunting seasons while hunters in Northern Minnesota have not.  These laws were put into place years ago when the DNR implemented restrictions on the type of firearms that could be used to hunt deer--in an effort to reduce the harvest numbers.

 

In 2013, after careful study, Wisconsin fully phased in a repeal of it's shotgun zone restrictions and allowed rifle hunting throughout the state.  Since then,  the number of accidental hunting related accidents has continued to go down. Many factors are responsible for the decline in firearms accidents, including better education, but one thing seems clear, rifles aren't more dangerous than shotguns and may in fact be safer. 

 

If you are interested in reading the available data yourself, there was a study done back in 2005 for the Pennsylvania Assembly which goes into great detail comparing the safety of rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders. It states that under normal hunting conditions, rifles are 16% safer than firearms.  Wisconsin DNR also publishes regular reports on hunting firearms safety. 

 

I am one of a handful of legislators who has worked on this issue each session and I am happy to report that language that I amended to the senate environment bill  to reduce the "shotgun zone" has passed the House and Senate, making it more likely that it will end up in law  this year.  My shotgun zone elimination amendment was further amended to allow Olmsted County to opt out and continue to be a shotgun only zone as their government had requested.  To hear more discussion on this topic you can listen to an interview I did with Rob Drieslein of Outdoor News on WCCO on Sunday.  

 

Please contact me to share any issues, concerns, or feedback you have to assist me in best representing you.  The best way to reach me is by email at [email protected] or by phone at 651-296-5612. My legislative assistant is Margaret Martin, and her number is 651-296-4264.  

Sincerely,

Steve Drazkowski

Minnesota Senate, District 20, Wabasha, Goodhue, Winona, Olmsted, and Dakota Counties.

2411 Minnesota Senate Building

95 University Avenue W.
Minnesota Senate Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55155