Week of April 22, 2007: Smoking Ban, E-Waste, Taxes

After a grueling week last week passing all our finance bills, I got some sleep and we went back at it on Monday. We had a floor session on Monday, including an address by the Swedish Ambassador Gunnar Lund, and a caucus meeting. Conference committees have started meeting to work out differences between the House and Senate. I have been monitoring the Public Safety conference committee because my scrap metal bill is included in the House omnibus bill. I have been discussing the differences between the House and Senate versions with Senator Linda Higgins (DFL-Minneapolis), who is the Senate author of the scrap metal bill. This is a very interesting process and I hope to update you on it soon.

On Tuesday we passed a bill that I've worked on or followed for several years. The bill, HF854, is a bill to create a comprehensive recycling infrastructure for residential electronic waste. The bill's author, Rep. Brita Sailer (DFL-Park Rapids), and I have worked together in recycling since 1997. The bill asks manufacturers to take a role in covering the cost of recycling electronics. We have a good set of private electronics recyclers in the state, but a lot of Minnesotans are not taking their old TV sets and computers to a recycling center because they usually have to pay a hefty fee. Over time, recycling of these items from your house will eventually be free so that we keep this material--which contains a lot of heavy metals--out of the ditches and the garbage. I spoke on the floor several times on some of the logistical issues surrounding the bill, and I was the "whip" with DFLers on the bill. That means I spoke to my colleagues to answer any questions about the intent of the bill and any amendments. In the end the bill passed by a whopping 112 to 21, with all DFLers voting for it and more than half of the Republicans voting for it.

I would like to note that Rep. Dennis Ozment (R-Rosemount) has led the fight for this bill in previous sessions, sometimes against the wishes of his colleagues and leadership.

The bill took about four hours to debate. We also had a caucus meeting and I taped a cable TV program updating constituents about the legislature's progress. Later in the afternoon, I sat in for a while on the game and fish division to hear testimony on the proposed constitutional amendment to increase the sales tax by 3/8% for clean water, habitat, and the arts.

On Wednesday, we had two caucus meetings and a floor session of a few hours. We took up several relatively uncontroversial bills on the floor and we considered the majority and minority reports from the House Taxes Committee. It is rare (I'm told) to see minority reports from the minority party presented on the floor. If we vote to accept the minority report, then we reject the majority's bill passed out of a committee. In this case, we were voting on which version of the House Tax Committee report to send to the Ways & Means Committee. The minority report includes the Governor's tax proposal, which to most of us would lead to another increase in property taxes. The majority report includes an increase in the income tax (but provide about $500 million in property tax cuts) and it will most assuredly lead to a Gubernatorial veto. I voted against both of them. I felt the minority report included a lot of gimmicks on taxes that we've seen in recent years, and the majority report is headed to a veto. Constituents have told me that they are tired of gimmicks and tired of game-playing with the budget process with vetoes and so on--they just want us to work with the Governor to get things done, and on time. So my vote was made to show that some of us are trying to push the different sides to a successful negotiation.

On Thursday, we took up the the tax committee majority and minority reports that came from the Ways & Means Committee. Again, I voted against both of them.

Our major bill for the day was the smoking ban. The constituent feedback was so overwhelming in favor of this bill. The amendments of interest that I supported included S0238A11 (restricts smoking in bars only to a smoking room where workers cannot enter--suggested by author--passed 81-52); HDA-341 (would add casinos to the smoking ban--it failed 60-71); S0238A6 (extends ban to tribal land--it failed 57-73); and A07-0845 (exempted retail tobacco products shops--it passed 74-58). I received ONE constituent contact this session asking for a specific exemption--the one on smoke shops listed above. I received a few e-mails during the session opposing the ban on the basis of property rights. The rest of the contacts--several dozen by e-mail, phone, letters, and in person--were in favor of a smoking ban without exemptions for bars and so on. The bill passed 85 to 45 and I voted for it.

On Friday, we considered the House Omnibus Tax bill. I outlined the main features of this bill in an April 1st blog entry. I thought that Rep. Ann Lenczewski, the House Tax Committee Chair, and Rep. Paul Marquart, the Chair of the Property Tax Division, did a very good job of putting this together. Rep. Marquart got a lot of great input from citizens around the state about property taxes. Rep. Lenczewski is also not interested in putting a lot of subsidies in the tax bills like big tax breaks for the Mall of America expansion or Thomson West in Eagan. As you might imagine, the controversial part of the bill was a boost in the income tax, which would go directly to property tax relief. Nothing helps raise voices in the House chamber like taxes!

While I thought that this bill was well thought out and has some merit, I and 10 other DFLers, mostly from the suburbs, voted against this bill, but it passed 73-60. (I think that vote total is correct--I wrote it down but can't find it right now.) Why did I vote against this bill? Because I am getting increasingly frustrated that we are just engaging in game-playing on this budget. The governor has shown absolutely no flexibility on the income tax issue and therefore this bill would be vetoed. To override a veto, the House needs 90 votes, and those votes are not there. During the campaign, constituents consistently asked me to not engage in a lot of politicking and to get the job done. I know that the leaders of the House and Senate are meeting with the Governor now on various budget issues, and I wish them luck. But until we get closer to a final resolution, I am not going to fool around on a topic that my constituents take very seriously.

Constituent contacts: Two Shoreview residents seeking 3.25% salary supplement for state employees; Shoreview resident against good faith insurance provision in omnibus commerce finance bill; North Oaks resident supporting an exemption for smoke shops in the smoking ban bill; Shoreview resident against the good faith provision; Lino Lakes resident supporting searchable state grant and contract database; Circle Pines resident supporting strong smoking ban; Lino Lakes resident against use of public money for foot bath facilities at Minneapolis Community & Technical College; Anoka County lobbyist about a trail bonding proposal; North Oaks resident about groundwater quality; Lino Lakes resident supporting better teacher compensation; Shoreview resident supporting a strong smoking ban; Lino Lakes resident supporting a strong smoking ban; Shoreview resident against taxes; Shoreview pediatrician supporting a strong smoking ban; Shoreview resident against taxes and increase in per diem; Circle Pines resident against taxes and supporting a strong smoking ban; unidentified resident supporting an exemption for smoke shops in the smoking ban bill; two Shoreview resident supporting more funding for the arts; residents from Shoreview (4), Lino Lakes (1), and Blaine (1) in support of HF1442, the Compassionate Care for Sexual Assault Victims Act; Lexington resident supporting a strong smoking ban; Shoreview resident supporting a strong smoking ban; Blaine resident supporting puppy mill bill; Shoreview resident supporting a gas tax increase, health coverage for all kids, and more affordable higher education; Shoreview resident supporting strong family planning language in the health bill; Shoreview resident supporting payment card industry data security standards; Shoreview resident supporting a strong smoking ban, against public subsidies for a Vikings stadium, and against a new income tax bracket; City of Lexington and North Suburban Communications Commission with comments about HF2351, a bill to promote video competition; North Oaks resident supporting progressive tax policy, universal health care, education, and environmental caucuses; Lino Lakes resident supporting an increase in the income tax; Lino Lakes resident supporting education funding and against public subsidies for a Vikings stadium; Shoreview resident against taxes; Lino Lakes residents against new taxes; unidentified constituent supporting the Dream Act; Shoreview resident supporting good faith provision; Lino Lakes resident supporting education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking less violence on cable television; two Shoreview residents against child support enforcement grants; Shoreview resident seeking a 3.25% salary supplement for public employees; Lino Lakes? resident supporting education funding; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident supporting education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; North Oaks resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident against good faith provision; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Lexington resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Circle Pines resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident against further gun restrictions; Shoreview dentist against a tax on cosmetic surgery; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident seeking special education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident against good faith provision; North Oaks resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident supporting strong funding and policy language for family planning; Circle Pines resident against good faith provision; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident supporting a constituent amendment to ban gay marriage; unidentified resident supporting special education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident supporting statewide health insurance pool for educators; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Shoreview resident supporting tax increases for education; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Circle Pines resident supporting special education funding; Circle Pines resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident seeking education funding and voluntary full-day kindergarten; North Oaks MD seeking an active oversight committee for the Health Care Access Fund; North Oaks business owner against further gun regulation; Shoreview resident seeking education funding; Lino Lakes resident against good faith provision; Lino Lakes resident against regulation of mortgage lenders; Shoreview resident against good faith provision; Lino Lakes resident against good faith provision; Blaine resident against further gun regulation; Lino Lakes resident against good faith provision; Circle Pines resident supporting a gas tax increase and against more investment in E85; Shoreview resident against the good faith provision; Shoreview resident supporting strong family planning language and funding; Lino Lakes resident supporting an income tax increase; Circle Pines resident supporting strong family planning language and funding; Shoreview resident seeking tax cuts; Shoreview resident supporting family planning language and funding; Shoreview resident supporting family planning language and funding; Lino Lakes resident against good faith provision; Shoreview resident supporting clean water funding; North Oaks couple supporting global warming bill; Lino Lakes resident supporting clean water funding; Circle Pines resident against good faith provision; Shoreview resident against good faith provision; unidentified resident against new taxes and spending; Lino Lakes resident supporting wetlands provisions in environmental finance bill; Shoreview resident supporting clean water funding; North Oaks resident supporting E85; North Oaks resident supporting a litter education campaign; Lino Lakes resident supporting the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; Shoreview resident seeking income tax exemption for federal retirees

Omnibus Health and Human Services Bill, April 21, 2007

The HHS bill (SF2171/HF297) has the reputation for being one of the more difficult bills to deliberate on the floor—even more than education. The reason for this is that the bill includes funding and policy language on nursing homes, public assistance for needy families, family planning, mental health, and so on.

Here are some highlights of the bill.

1. Health care reform. My colleague from Woodbury, Rep. Julie Bunn, has taken the lead in reform to help reduce health care costs for the 92% of us who have health coverage. Selected initiatives in this bill include
* pilot programs for payment reform; community collaboratives; medical home treatment to help keep some patients at home instead of at a hospital or nursing home; and more coordination of your medical care by your primary health care provider
* uniform billing methods and movement toward electronic health records with important new data practices protections

2. Nursing home reimbursement rates in Greater Minnesota would rise to the same level as the Twin Cities metro area. (Our district does not have a nursing home, although there are several senior rentals and assisted living facilities in Shoreview.)

3. Nursing home rates would go through a "re-basing" process for the first time since 1993 by which rates would reflect current needs. There is a concern that some nursing homes around the state will close in the next few years without re-basing.

4. Under this bill, the 70,000 uninsured children in Minnesota would have health coverage by 70,000.

Some observations:

There were concerns by pro-life constituents that there would be a cut in the Positive Alternatives program, which is a crisis program for pregnant women. This bill funds what the Governor proposed and was not cut. There was a sizable increase in the funding available for pregnancy prevention.

There was one amendment (out of about 50) that I supported (S2171A102) by Rep. Bruce Anderson (R-Buffalo) that would shift money to pandemic flu planning by deleting money for an unrelated study. I studied pandemic flu when I worked in the solid waste area and I respectfully disagreed with the lack of funding available in this bill. I also voted for an amendment (HDA-321) by Rep. Marty Seifert (R-Marshall) that would prohibit the purchase of alcohol and tobacco by Minnesotans on public assistance who use a state debit card. I didn't write down the amendment number on another amendment by Rep. Seifert that I voted for, which would prohibit public assistance for convicted felons from other states.

Another observation: I learned that two-thirds of this bill deals with nursing homes and the disabled. Only two percent of the state budget goes to what is referred to as "welfare."

I voted for the bill—at about 1:30 a.m. on Saturday morning—and it passed 86-45. This was the final finance bill for the House, and we did this two weeks ahead of when other recent legislatures have passed finance bills.

Economic Development & Workforce Bill plus Higher Education Bill and State Government Finance: April 19, 2007

The House met in session at 9:30 a.m. this morning, recessed so that both party caucuses could get briefed on the bills to be debated, then came back about 11:00 a.m.

Omnibus Economic Development Workforce Policy & Finance Bill

This bill is SF2089. When a Senate version is passed first we insert the Senate file number (although the bill is not the Senate's language). This bill includes budget items for MN tourism, the MN Historical Society, arts groups, housing, bioscience initiatives, state boards, and so on. The vote was 92 to 39 and I voted for it.

Higher Education Policy & Finance Bill

This bill (SF1989) provides funding to the U of M, MnSCU, and so on. I supported the bill's passage, and it passed 95-37.

Highlights: The bill (as amended) would hold down tuition increases at MnSCU campuses to zero percent for the next two years. The original proposal was to limit the increase to two percent the first year and zero the second year of the next biennium.

The House minority leader, Rep. Marty Seifert, introduced an amendment (HDA-128) that moved $6 million (out of $40,170,550) from office of the MnSCU chancellor and administrative services and moves it into tuition in order to reduce the increase to zero percent next year and zero in the next year. It passed 97-35 and I voted for it. Usually, amendments by the opposition fail on mostly partisan lines but I thought this idea was well thought out. A senior Democrat, Rep. Gene Pelowski of Winona, also strongly supported the amendment on the floor. So the vote was bi-partisan.

The most controversial amendment on this dealt with the "dream act," which would allow undocumented Minnesota high school graduates to attend a state college or university at a resident tuition rate. Rep. Dan Severson (R-Sauk Rapids) offered the amendment (S1989A2) to delete this provision from the bill. I know that this is controversial but here is the text of the "dream act" starting on line 30.13 or section 7 of SF1989. I will follow with some analysis.

[135A.043] RESIDENT TUITION.
(a) A student shall qualify for a resident tuition rate or its equivalent at state universities and colleges, including the University of Minnesota, if the student meets all of the following requirements: (1) high school attendance within the state for three or more years; graduation from a state high school or attainment within the state of the equivalent of high school graduation; and (3) registration as an entering student at, or current enrollment in, a public institution of higher education.
(b) This section is in addition to any other statute, rule, or higher education institution regulation or policy providing eligibility for a resident tuition rate or its equivalent to a student.
(c) To qualify for resident tuition under this section an individual who is not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States must provide the college or university with an affidavit that the individual will file an application to become a permanent resident at the earliest opportunity the individual is eligible to do so.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment and applies to tuition for school terms commencing on or after that date.

I hope that readers might take the time to view the debate on this amendment. In particular, I found the statements of Rep. Rukavina and Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) to be very compelling. Indeed, Rep. Hamilton says on the video that his great-grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Germany!

To view the video, click on http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/archivesall.asp?ls_year=85 and find the House floor session #3 for April 19, 2007. When the video comes up, you can fast forward to 2:18:25 and you'll get to see it. Rep. Severson talks for about 10 minutes at the beginning and it goes on for about 20 to 30 minutes. There was another amendment at 2:54:00 by Rep. Emmer (R-Delano) on this topic later that brought the comments from Rukavina (2:57) and Hamilton.

When I first heard of this idea several years ago to provide in-state tuition to people who are here illegally, I thought it sounded really unfair and I didn't like the idea at all. However, having talked and listened to experts tell us that our workforce is going to be woefully short of college graduates, having learned during the last few years that our immigration system is incredibly broken and complex, having learned that these students are not eligible for student loans or grants and therefore do not compete with other students for funds, having learned that our economy and political bodies send conflicting signals on immigration, having been lobbied by constituents from the ISAIAH group in favor of this issue, having learned that these students did not make the choice to be here illegally when they were minors, and having learned that 13 campuses in Minnesota offers such in-state tuition, I voted against the Severson amendment to strip out the "dream act" and it did not get adopted with a vote of 61-71.

I just read in a MN Chamber of Commerce newsletter ("Business Views") that this organization also supports the Dream Act. They write, "It is important to our economy to have an educated and trained workforce. Demographics are rapidly changing, and we anticipate a shortage of educated workers. Therefore, we need a greater percentage of students to pursue a postsecondary education. Supporting higher education for all students, including our immigrant populations, is in the best interest of our state’s economy."

There was also some hubbub about the recent Star Tribune column about Minneapolis Technical and Community College and its intent to fix up some bathrooms so Muslims can wash their feet before praying. I received a lot of e-mail about this. Rep. Abeler (R-Anoka) introduced and then withdrew an amendment that I would have voted for that would say, "Each college and university must permit employees to display cultural and spiritual symbols in space assigned to employees as their individual work areas. If a college or university provides common space to employees for cultural or spiritual practice or display, this space must be provided on an equal basis to all interested groups of employees." This amendment would have alleviated concerns by some that colleges and universities were applying a double standard between Christians and Muslims.

Omnibus State Government Finance Bill

This bill was HF953/SF1997 and we dealt with it fairly late in the evening. This bill includes funding for the legislature, the Governor and other constitutional offices, councils, and so on. After a while the Republicans just decided that they would ask for a full vote on the bill instead of trying to change specific provisions through amendments. The bill passed 68-64 and I voted for it, although I think that there is some room for improvement in the bill. The controversial provision in the bill includes domestic partner benefits for state employees and the option for local governments to do so as well. I will note that I have received significant positive feedback on this provision from constituents, and you'll see this on the blog in previous entries. Many major corporations in Minnesota offer these benefits in order to retain good employees.

Omnibus E-12 Education Finance Budget Bill, April 18, 2007

This post sums up the floor activity related to the Omnibus E-12 Education Finance bill (HF6) on Wednesday. (We started working on this bill about 3 p.m. after working all night--see next post below for details on that session!)

Generally speaking, here are the benefits to the bill.

* Early childhood: The bill returns the budget to its 2002 levels for head start, ECFE, and school readiness programs.

* K-12: This bill would increase the basic education formula from $4,974 per pupil to $5,125 in FY2008 and $5,280 in FY2009. This is a three percent increase per year. Also included is $29.1 million over the next two years for school technology grants, funding for voluntary all-day kindergarten, and an additional $106 million over the base budget to fund the special education cross subsidy.

* Property tax relief: The bill contains $125 million in property tax relief. (See some district-specific examples below.)

Here's how I understand the effects of the E-12 bill on school districts in my district. Those districts include Centennial (ISD 12), Mounds View (ISD 621), and White Bear Lake (ISD 624). I represent one street in the Forest Lake district but I'll have to pass on that one for the moment.

Centennial: In FY2008, Centennial would see a 3.3% increase in the base budget ($8,481 total), or $186 more per pupil for general education and $82 per pupil more for special education. In FY2009, there would be a 9.1% increase in the base budget ($9,004 total), or $488 per pupil more for general education and $87 per pupil more for special education. In addition, Centennial will receive about $2.2 million from the state that pays down existing levy dollars ("debt equalization," operating capital decrease). That means Centennial would not receive $2.2 million more for education but would charge $2.2 million less to property taxpayers.

Mounds View: In FY2008, Mounds View would see a 3.3% increase in the base budget ($10,383 total), or $244 more per pupil for general education and $85 per pupil more for special education. In FY2009, there would be an 8.2% increase in the base budget ($11,012 total), or $569 per pupil more for general education and $88 per pupil more for special education. Mounds View will receive about $1.92 million from the state that pays down existing levy dollars ("debt equalization," operating capital decrease). That means Mounds View would not receive $1.92 million more for education but would charge $1.92 million less to property taxpayers.

White Bear Lake: In FY2008, White Bear Lake would see a 3.2% increase in the base budget ($8,961 total), or $199 more per pupil for general education and $81 per pupil more for special education. In FY2009, there would be an 8.7% increase in the base budget ($9,206 total), or $525 per pupil more for general education and $71 per pupil more for special education. White Bear Lake will receive about $1.01 million from the state that pays down existing levy dollars ("debt equalization," operating capital decrease). That means White Bear Lake would not receive $1.01 million more for education but would charge $1.01 million less to property taxpayers.

Miscellaneous: Several Mounds View parents who are supportive of Q-Comp have asked for continued state support of the program. My reading of the bill indicates that districts that currently use Q-Comp will have funding available, although it would not be for additional districts.

My count of amendments was 54. Virtually all of them were not adopted by wide margins. The final bill, which I voted for at 12:55 AM on Thursday passed by a margin of 119 to 13.

Environment, Energy & Commerce Bill; Agriculture & Vets Bill; and Public Safety Bill on April 17-18, 2007

What a day! We met on the House floor to vote on four bills starting at about 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday and we finished at 5:20 a.m. on Wednesday morning.

Our floor actions included passing a bill to abolish the Department of Employee Relations (HF1048); passing the Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs omnibus finance bill (HF2227); passing the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources and Commerce omnibus finance bill (SF2096-3rd unofficial engrossment), and the Public Safety omnibus finance bill (HF829).

The first bill (HF1048) passed quickly. The agriculture and vets bill passed 131-2 (I voted for it) after seven amendments were introduced. One amendment was a perennial idea by Rep. Urdahl to make companies immune from civil liability for obesity lawsuits--the cheeseburger bill! Rep. Urdahl gave an enjoyable and passionate speech on the issue before the amendment was deemed non-germane to the bill. It was considered later in the public safety bill.

The energy and environment bill took a good ten hours at least, maybe 12. We spent about 90 minutes talking about an amendment related to fish farms and bait and their negative effect on duck habitat. Wild rice legislation also took up quite a bit of time. Several amendments proposed taking money from Metro Parks and put it somewhere else. Rep. Bev Scalze, Rev. Kate Knuth, and I have advocated heavily for an additional $1.5 million annually for Metro Parks in the Environmental Finance Committee. After 47 amendments, the bill passed 95 to 38 and I voted for it.

One of the issues that might be of interest was the amendment on de minimus requirements on wetlands. Rep. Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) wanted to reduce the amount of wetland that can be used for development before you have to replace it somewhere else. In committee I voted to retain these requirements but after discussing the minutiae of the bill with representatives of Anoka County, it appears that this might actually be a very high-cost and low-result way of preserving and enhancing wetlands. I voted with the amendment to delete these new restrictions for now but the amendment was not adopted by a vote of 50-84.

The environment bills, as in committee, often show splits along geographic lines and not always partisan lines. Rural members--especially Northern MN members--tend to focus on use of the land, hunting, fishing, etc. Urban and some suburban members tend to focus on energy, toxicity issues, parks, and trails.

After midnight, we tacked the public safety bill. There were 21 amendments, including two attempting to change elements of my scrap metal dealer regulation package, including the penalty for non-compliance (amendment failed) and the requirement for video or still photo cameras for scrap metal recyclers (amendment failed). I defended against these amendments on the floor in my first floor debate for about ten minutes. At about 5:20 a.m., we voted on the bill 96-34, and I voted for it.

This was my first all-nighter at the Capitol. As the debates go on and on, people try to find places to rest for even a few minutes. In the retiring room behind the speaker's desk, members get a few minutes to eat dinner or stretch out or lean back on the couches and chairs. It reminded me a lot of a few bus and train station waiting rooms I've been in! At times like this members from both parties strike up friendly conversations, which helps to build better working relationships. On the floor, however, sometimes the elbows fly in the debate, often between people from the same party, on the issues. When it's late, people get a little punchy and irritable. But we got through it and at dawn I drove home for a few hours of sleep. My wife was sweet enough to adjust her schedule to get the kids off to school, which is usually my job, and I was out like a light!

Week of April 15, 2007

On Monday, I attended a short floor session and then sat in on the electronic waste bill hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee. That bill, HF854, will now go to the "General Register," which means that it can be taken up on the floor pretty much any time. In the afternoon, I cleared out my e-mail and constituent communication (see below).

On Tuesday, I attended a short presentation on gun laws by a couple of groups, including city and county attorneys in the metro area; meeting of several suburban DFL legislators on issues of mutual interest; attended the DFL House Caucus; and attended a floor session that I blogged on separately.

Visitors: North Oaks resident/MD and representative of MN Medical Association about the MMA's legislative platform; lobbyist for and member of Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries on scrap metal provision of HF829; Anoka County Commissioner and representatives of MN Center for Environmental Advocacy and Sierra Club on de minimus exemptions on wetlands provision of environmental finance bill

Constituent contacts for April 15-22: Lino Lakes, Circle Pines, and Shoreview residents against good faith insurance bill; two Shoreview residents supporting family planning language in omnibus health and human services bill

Constituent contacts for April 8-14: Shoreview resident supporting a gas tax increase that is indexed to inflation and against micro-management by the state of local governments; Circle Pines driving school employee against a bill provision that would allow on-line driver education; North Oaks resident supporting a workers compensation bill (HF2248); North Oaks resident against good faith insurance proposal; Circle Pines resident supporting HF498, the "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; Shoreview? resident against good faith insurance proposal; Shoreview resident giving me input on "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; Shoreview resident supporting HF498, the "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; North Oaks businessperson supporting HF498, the "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; Shoreview resident supporting good faith insurance proposal; Shoreview resident supporting "single sales" corporate tax proposal; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Circle Pines resident in favor of tax increases; Shoreview resident against good faith insurance proposal; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident supporting a salary supplement for public employees; Lino Lakes resident supporting a tax increase; Lino Lakes resident supporting funding for transit and transportation; Shoreview resident about homeowner rights bill; Circle Pines dentist against HF1027, a tax on cosmetic surgery; North Oaks resident supporting E85; Lino Lakes resident against good faith insurance proposal; Forest Lake School District supporting HF234, a bill to eliminate a requirement for a primary election in school board elections; North Oaks resident with analysis on property tax proposals and supporting the Q-Comp teacher compensation proposal; Lino Lakes resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident against allowing benefits for same-sex public employee partners; Shoreview resident with question about a tax audit; North Oaks resident supporting nuclear power as an alternative to coal; Circle Pines resident supporting a salary supplement for state employees; Shoreview resident supporting a tax increase; Shoreview resident supporting comprehensive sex education; Lino Lakes dentist against HF1027, a tax on cosmetic surgery; Shoreview resident against good faith insurance proposal; Lino Lakes resident supporting a salary supplement for public employees; Shoreview resident supporting comprehensive sex education; Shoreview resident supporting a salary supplement for public employees; Shoreview resident supporting funds for clean water; Shoreview resident supporting funds for clean water; Lino Lakes resident supporting funds for clean water; Lino Lakes resident supporting a tax increase; unidentified constituent supporting a salary supplement for public employees; Circle Pines resident supporting comprehensive sex education; North Oaks dentist against HF1027, a tax on cosmetic surgery; Lexington City Manager about legislation on pensions for volunteer fire departments; North Oaks dentist against HF1027, a tax on cosmetic surgery; unidentified resident supporting salary supplement for public employees; Shoreview resident supporting salary supplement for public employees; Shoreview resident supporting funds for clean water; Shoreview resident supporting homeowners rights bill; six Circle Pines residents, six Lino Lakes residents; five Shoreview residents, and one North Oaks residents (all Qwest employees) asking for support of HF2351, a bill to allow more competition for video service to households; 43 district residents upset about a recent Star Tribune story on public expenditures for Muslims at Minneapolis Technical & Community College

Constituent contacts for April 1-7: Shoreview resident pleased with blog; North Oaks resident concerned about idea in Senate about incentives for healthy habits by people on public assistance; Lino Lakes resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident concerned about regressiveness of gas tax; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Shoreview high school resident interested in "hang-up-and-drive" bill; North Oaks resident supporting smoking ban without exemptions; Lino Lakes resident about crossbow hunting legislation; Lino Lakes mortgage lender concerned about HF1004 (a bill to crack down on predatory lending); Lino Lakes resident against an income tax increase; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Lino Lakes resident supporting funding for early education initiatives; Circle Pines resident about Parkinson's Disease; Shoreview resident supporting stem cell research funding; Shoreview resident against tax increases and regressiveness of the proposed gas tax increase; Shoreview resident supporting a tax increase to support transportation and education; Lino Lakes resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident against tax increases; unidentified constituent against gas tax increase; Lino Lakes resident against income tax increase; Shoreview resident against income and gas tax increase and supporting refund of the one-time surplus for this fiscal year; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Circle Pines resident with comments about property tax relief package (less LGA, more direct refunds to taxpayers); Circle Pines resident against income tax increases; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Lino Lakes resident against any tax increases and supporting pay-for-performance for teachers; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Shoreview resident supporting a salary supplement for public employees and support of a "lights on" bill to keep critical state government offices open in case of a government shutdown; Lino Lakes resident supporting a gas tax increase and a property tax decrease; Lino Lakes resident supporting HF1067, a bill on mental health and HF420, a bill to require physical education in K-12 schools; Shoreview resident pleased about information on property tax relief package; Shoreview resident in support of HF498, the "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; Lino Lakes resident supporting a tax increase; Shoreview? resident against the recent transportation bill; Lino Lakes resident supporting clean water and clean energy legislation; Blaine resident against tax increases; Circle Pines resident supporting HF498, the "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; Circle Pines resident against good faith insurance proposal; Shoreview resident supporting HF498, the "Stand Your Ground" firearms bill; Shoreview resident against tax increases; Circle Pines resident against good faith insurance proposal; Shoreview resident against good faith insurance proposal; Circle Pines couple against stem cell research; Lake Johanna Fire Relief Association against provisions in HF702 requiring that volunteer fire companies invest their pension funds with the State Investment Board; Anoka County Commissioners sending resolution opposed to revisions to the Wetlands Conservation Act; Circle Pines and Blaine residents asking for income tax credit for retired federal employees; Circle Pines resident supporting providing health coverage for all uninsured children; Circle Pines resident against comprehensive sex education; Shoreview resident about property taxes; Anoka County Library Board; North Oaks resident supporting Big Stone II coal power plant and puppy mill legislation; Lino Lakes resident on mortgage lender regulation; North Oaks resident about per diem and bill dealing with individuals with gastro-intestinal disorders; Shoreview and Lino Lakes residents supporting Runaway & Homeless Youth Act

Weeks of April 1-14, 2007

I wanted to take a moment to mention one of the more difficult things that we do in the House. On Tuesday, April 10, we had two moments of silence for two fallen Minnesota servicemen, including Army Spc. Conor G. Masterson, a native of Woodbury and Inver Grove Heights who died in Afghanistan, and Marine Lance Cpl. Daniel R. Olsen of Eagan who died last week in Iraq. Representatives of their hometowns gave short statements about these young men, including Rep. Wardlow, who had Olsen as a student when he was a teacher.

On Monday, April 2, I attended a meeting of the House Finance Committee, hoping to see the passage of the electronic waste recycling bill, but the committee adjourned for the break before that could happen. Then I attended a short floor session. The House was on an Easter/Passover break from April 3 to April 9th. But on Wednesday, April 4th I attended a meeting of the Metro North Chamber of Commerce where the group discussed various transportation funding proposals and I did some work at my office. On Thursday, April 5th, I met with the kindergarten classes from Island Lake Elementary in Shoreview. (My son was in this group.)

This week we came back on Tuesday, April 10th to meet for a short floor session. I filmed a short cable TV interview after the session. The freshmen DFL legislators met with House leadership in the afternoon. In the evening (as in 9:00 p.m.) I attended the House Finance Committee as it took action on the Omnibus Public Safety Finance bill. I was there to be available for questions should the provisions containing my scrap metal regulation bill come under discussion. However, there were no amendments or questions on the topic and I got home at 10:40 p.m.

On Wednesday, April 11th, I attended a short floor session; an informal meeting of some freshmen DFLers; and the full DFL House Caucus. In the evening, I came back to the House Tax Committee, where the public safety omnibus bill was heard. One amendment was introduced to remove one provision of my scrap metal proposal and it failed 10-14. Another amendment was going to be introduced and I worked out some compromise language with the author in order to make it an acceptable amendment, and it was approved on a voice vote. The meeting went long and it finished at about 11:15 p.m.

On Thursday, April 12th, I attended a breakfast meeting of the Metro North Chamber of Commerce in Mounds View. The Governor spoke to the group and discussed transportation, education, and the budget. Afterward I sat in on the House Finance Committee to listen to the debate on the e-waste bill. In the afternoon I attended the House DFL Caucus and a short floor session. Finally, I visited an open house for a new Edward Jones brokerage in North Oaks.

On Friday, April 13th, I attended the House Ways & Means Committee where it passed the public safety omnibus bills. No amendments or questions came up on the scrap metal regulation issues. The next stop is the floor! I also met with staff at Asset Recovery Corp., a St. Paul electronics recycler, about the impacts of a proposed electronic waste bill. In the afternoon I attended a short floor session and a meeting of the House Tax Committee in case they brought up the e-waste bill.

On Saturday, April 14th, my family and I went down to the Capitol to visit the Global Warming Action Day. (In our new hybrid car!) I was hoping for some consumer-friendly info on how to reduce my carbon emissions and some kids' activities, but it was kind of an advocacy exhibit thing. The anti-tax folks had a rally at the same time on the steps of the Capitol so there was some mixing of the two groups--fortunately it was peaceful!

Visitors: Director of Anoka County Parks; Shoreview resident with expertise on treatment of sex offenders; Circle Pines resident about property tax relief, LGA, and parks funding; a Shoreview resident who received a award ("Stars of Life") for his work as an emergency medical professional; a Shoreview resident about mercury and vaccines; six teachers from Centennial School District on education issues; two Lino Lakes residents and education advocates about education funding; Circle Pines and Lino Lakes residents about research and treatment of Parkinson's Disease; Shoreview resident and representative of the ISAIAH group about progressive legislation; staff member from MN Environmental Partnership about dedicated funding for clean water and the outdoors; a Circle Pines chiropractor with some of her colleagues about legislation affecting their industry; staff from TakeAction Minnesota about the recent minimum wage proposal

Constituent contacts: I've received so much of this during the last two weeks it will take a few days to get this in here.

Some more detail about tax proposals

I've been getting quite a bit of feedback from constituents about tax proposals that have been covered in the media. Some of the feedback is outright opposition to anything that increases a government budget--and that's a perfectly legitimate and valid point of view--but I am noticing that there needs to be more clarity about what is actually being proposed and how it affects you and me, so I thought I would provide some background so that constituents can have an accurate picture.

* While the DFL controls both the House and Senate, that doesn't necessarily follow that the two houses are coordinating their proposals for the budget. Indeed, budget proposals are turning out to be pretty different in each body, and they must be reconciled in conference committees before the Governor ever sees these proposals. The Senate is proposing some ideas for taxes that are more expensive than what is going on in the House, and I'm getting a lot of phone calls and e-mail against what the Senate is doing. The Senate has now passed all of its spending and tax bills, but the House has only passed the omnibus transportation bill and a bonding bill. So I haven't even had a chance to vote on the other major spending and tax bills yet.

* The word isn't necessarily getting out that the ONLY income tax increase being proposed in the House would be directed ONLY to property tax relief. The Chair of the House Property Tax Relief Division of the House Tax Committee, Rep. Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) did a nice editorial being carried around the state this week that explains the proposal pretty well. The increase would be a tax rate of 9.00% up from 7.85% for earners making $226,000 as individuals or $400,000 as married couples after deductions. NONE of this proposed increase would go to education, health care, etc. This proposal would cut the average property tax bill for homeowners by 3.4%, while if the legislature adopted the Governor's proposed budget property taxes are expected to rise next year by 7.3%.

* The property tax proposal has been sometime called a more progressive tax. I think that this is misleading people to assume that we will treat the property tax like the income tax. It probably would be more accurate to say that the property tax bill will be "less regressive" rather than "more progressive." Under Rep. Marquart's bill, if you pay more than two percent of your income in property taxes, you would get a credit or refund on your property taxes if your income is less than $150,000. How much? From 25% of your bill if your household income is at $150,000 in income to as much as 90% for people on the lower income scale (especially those seniors on fixed incomes).

* The House proposal would not be sending much property tax relief in the form of local government aid. Indeed, LGA would only be a little more than 10% of the whole package. Most of the relief would go directly to taxpayers.

* The House proposal would prohibit new local sales taxes and local governments would not be able to use your taxpayer dollars to "advertise, promote or hold elections for a referendum related to a local sales tax." This would be good news to folks in Anoka County opposed to the Vikings stadium proposal.

* The only sales tax increase being proposed in the House is an optional half-cent sales tax for transit in the metro area that county boards could opt into. This was part of the transportation package we approved two weeks ago. However, I voted for an amendment that would require a referendum on this proposed sales tax. This amendment failed narrowly. The House might consider at some point a bill for dedicated funding for outdoor habitat, clean water, etc. but that has not moved through committees yet.

* The House is not considering an indexing of the gas tax for inflation, nor are we considering an increase in the business property tax. Those ideas are being proposed at the Senate.

How do the House proposals affect you? Well, I can't tell you exact numbers yet because local taxing authorities like cities, counties, and school districts haven't calculated the household impact of the proposals. But according to staff here, for someone like me--with a house valued in 2006 at $256,700, 2007 property taxes of $2,874, and a 2006 federal adjusted gross household income of $97,976--would see a property tax cut of about $365.79 annually. (Note: On 4/5/07 I double-checked my calculations with House staff and my own tax forms, so the numbers I had posted before Thursday were preliminary.) I would not pay any additional income taxes under the House proposal. I recognize that not everyone in the district fits this profile.

The House property tax bill is HF0003, although I see that it has not yet been updated (or "engrossed" on the House web site at http://www.house.mn).

In addition, if our transportation package passes and more funding goes to city and county roads, our city and county would have to levy less on the property taxes. Finally, the property tax plan includes a "levy buyback" for local school districts that would reduce the amount that the school district levies on our property taxes.

PLEASE send me your thoughtful input about this and other proposals floating out there at rep.paul.gardner@house.mn.