[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6361684,"mediaKeyId","2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465","parentId",2170348,"title","Informational hearing: senator pitches sales‑tax exemption on building materials to lower new‑home costs","audioSeconds",1220,"startMs",5533000,"endMs",6753000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465&start=5533&end=6753","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465/thumbnail_5533000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6361684/Minnesota/Informational-hearing-senator-pitches-salestax-exemption-on-building-materials-to-lower-newhome-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361684-0d916ad5084634f40a971eb8694b0089/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145719&Signature=j86dlCi9uABVtwZ7P0PzYrEG3xQlu19aKxgg55NN606vLCmoyLRAnUB6RUoUfRfN~x8PeB4zx~I-szTzZWKT20zE70XsU4FEANv3ZLo9b5543truh0lo1hGd7LZnAfKUXbuYAruIQFty7ZLcKdC3EFBhzDo9DwgF1tcO-gnAcrCaN006B~VVu5MlwGlvwzSHzRXFHZajtMQdWYCPJq5R4j4DSx9HNHlhIl1g5-oZ6HkokUJutw0qG13M6Ii3IVkgbRVyn0cHismgicwkGMHjM94a256lrO-7FJ6F~tBO~tPnwBqnk3YTu4kPVmrCTzP2qp6pYXRGHOywf3Jb85vNMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Senate Media Services","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Lucero presented an informational proposal (Senate File 536) to exempt sales tax on building materials for new residential construction as a way to reduce the price of newly built homes and encourage greater supply. The measure was heard for informational purposes in the Senate Committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention; it was not in the committee's tax jurisdiction and no committee action was taken.

Lucero and witnesses from the home‑building industry described how sales tax on materials—lumber, windows, shingles, cabinets, appliances, lighting and drywall—adds several thousand dollars to the cost of a new house. Legislative and industry estimates offered in committee suggested the exemption could reduce a model 1,600‑square‑foot home’s buyer cost by roughly $9,000–$10,000; Lucero demonstrated how a lower sales price translates into smaller monthly mortgage payments and lower interest over time. Mark Foster of Housing First Minnesota said a $10,000 reduction in cost could expand homeownership opportunities, estimating that every $1,000 in cost savings could make roughly 2,500 more families eligible for a mortgage under typical underwriting assumptions.

Committee members welcomed the idea but raised questions about targeting, fiscal tradeoffs and ensuring savings reach purchasers rather than increasing developer profit. Senator Mohammed and others asked how to ensure the savings were passed to homebuyers rather than retained by developers; Senator Lucero suggested disclosure mechanisms—such as a line item on a sales disclosure—could document the tax savings passed to buyers. Senators also suggested targeting exemptions to certain price bands, square‑footage thresholds or income tiers and requested a fiscal note showing the state revenue impact and potential options to limit the subsidy to starter or affordable homes.

Because the bill is in the taxes committee’s jurisdiction, senators described this hearing as soliciting feedback and noted they would pursue the policy further in appropriate committees. No formal committee action or vote was taken during the informational hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention - 01/30/25","oneSentenceSummary","Sen. Lucero held an informational hearing on a proposal to exempt sales tax on building materials for new homes, saying the change could shave roughly $9,000–$10,000 off a model 1,600‑square‑foot home's cost and expand homeownership opportunities.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MN, Minnesota","taxId",77817,"location","Minnesota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361689,"Committee advances bill to waive county recording fees for removing racial/restrictive covenants",336,5200000,5536000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465&start=5200&end=5536","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465/thumbnail_5200000.jpg","/articles/6361689/Minnesota/Committee-advances-bill-to-waive-county-recording-fees-for-removing-racialrestrictive-covenants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361689-2a39101564b9ff7a148baf9ba75e1fe2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145719&Signature=Kcga3aPjApyXlWtJkNOW1-MGDhPZTHA0FrzH2OT3-8BdpE2V~F3yhqC6NE7S-CTBIxVcLjJhRsyvtUwXj9arBpxTvA8xo9nq03wnytkVGi3437igNUKNDIk5WmUdYr0vrvbE11yBiNY0kcly9a5DIhKLJcXfwKauXRnKJp~ujOVp7hAxPduMIQlxetZwJntE2IL0GIrzdiHAyBLneGoV2gy2MrNk7UYErGqh14c-nA9Cc8Iv1rYnUWB8AXPEgtvNxNvIzA5asUnBzBgRH78UM8~N4x77mgaSvNHW2EqlyTMpPVtSBJvbnWwpQ1yo8VzCqVZQpxO9Ci2JymYCeQ-Wpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate File 559, a proposal to prohibit county recording fees for documents that remove racially restrictive or other unlawful restrictive covenants from property titles, was advanced by the Senate Committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention and recommended for referral to the Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor Senator Lucero said the bill grew from work by groups identifying restrictive covenants recorded on titles decades ago. Although such covenants were declared illegal years ago, the language often remains on recorded deeds and titles; groups are working to identify and remove them. \"When an effort is performed to remove those [covenants], it's still a document that has to be recorded on title,\" Lucero said. Recording fees vary by county and can be roughly $40 to $60; the bill would bar counties from charging a recording fee for filings that remove racial or restrictive covenants.

Senators from both parties signed on as co‑authors and expressed support. Senator Port and Senator Housley both identified themselves as co‑authors and urged the committee to move the measure forward. Committee staff cited Mapping Prejudice at the University of Minnesota, which has identified about 33,000 racial covenants in Twin Cities area records, as background information in the packet.

No opponents signed up to testify; the committee record includes a letter of support from Legal Aid Minnesota. The committee adopted the author's A2 amendment and voted to recommend the bill for passage and referral to the Judiciary Committee; the motion carried by voice vote.

If enacted, the bill would reduce the transactional cost of removing discriminatory language from property records and assist community groups and property owners seeking to clear titles. The committee did not provide a fiscal note in the hearing; members asked staff follow‑up questions about the geographic distribution of covenants and the administrative impact on county recorders' offices.","Senate File 559 would prohibit counties from charging a recording fee for documents that remove racial or other restrictive covenants from property titles. The committee adopted an author's amendment and voted to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee with recommendation for passage.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361693,"Committee weighs background‑check requirement for nonresident tenant organizers; cap added and bill tabled",1416,3718000,5134000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465&start=3718&end=5134","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465/thumbnail_3718000.jpg","/articles/6361693/Minnesota/Committee-weighs-backgroundcheck-requirement-for-nonresident-tenant-organizers-cap-added-and-bill-tabled","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361693-a173e425dfd242dd7a56cb9b6b114bd3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145719&Signature=o6xNNJKNtF3F9MJ1tQOCNAWYtVccaSXqK0SYSWe~ai-KSpmLQvk5w9bcN9J2eZdAbRzu2uJY~-wSpIzGY6HXL6HAwbgFYZJivfoFb-W6kpuVSmSjKltWXQUfCLsb8vWqlG09xhGG-dYJizQd1CGSK7O8y8BnVKUnjQhmGzfd5mF391lV1NnLryeYbSWBzyVRgqO5CrPigVoiwZrdLCRr2f~XksRU9ze~wXTv5cuhnwqTqIFMzpSr9efiatN2d-eVX51bqKQDXQepwcgx9PhZctHy0~VpfiQQrcsmRVxFlEymY7GDDcmbyJ2IDepw56ifd3l1fjiTEyNkELCuat--OQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate File 222, a proposal to require background checks for nonresident tenant organizers who enter multifamily residential buildings, drew sharp debate in the Senate Committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention. The committee adopted an oral amendment capping landlords' charge for conducting a background check at $50, but later laid the amended bill on the table for additional work.

Sponsor supporters said the bill seeks to protect tenants and building occupants by requiring a criminal history check for organizers who are not residents of the property. The sponsor described the measure as a balance between tenant safety and tenants' right to organize; he said organizers often enter common areas and interact with many households and that building managers are responsible for the safety of all residents.

Senator Pah offered an oral amendment to limit the landlord charge to \"a maximum of $50\" to reduce potential cost barriers; the committee adopted that oral amendment by voice vote. The language ultimately inserted reads that the landlord may charge an amount equal to actual cost up to a maximum of $50 for conducting the criminal history background check.

Tenant advocates and civil‑liberties groups opposed the bill's targeted requirement for tenant organizers, saying existing case law and state statutes already protect tenant rights and that the provision would chill organizing. Michael Dahl of Home Line said tenants already have rights to invite guests and that the Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes a tenant's right to give guests a license to visit. Equity‑in‑Place coalition organizer Juan Luis Rivera told the committee the proposal would \"hamper organizers due to the financial implications\" and could impose unfair barriers for renters trying to organize in multifamily housing.

Supporters responded that the bill does not bar organizers and that organizers are already required under the current law to be accompanied by a resident when entering nonresident buildings; the chair's counsel confirmed the existing statutory provision (Minn. Stat. § 504B.0.212, subd. 1(e)) requires a nonresident tenant organizer to be accompanied by a resident while in the residential building.

Committee members also noted broader housing‑system reasons behind organizer presence, with several senators stressing underlying shortages of affordable housing and arguing that enforcement capacity and shelter availability are part of why people occupy units without authorization.

Procedural actions recorded in the hearing: an oral amendment capping the landlord's charge at $50 was adopted; the committee later voted to lay Senate File 222, as amended, on the table. No roll‑call tallies for the final tabling vote were recorded in the transcript; the committee announced the bill had been laid on the table.","Senate File 222 would require background checks for nonresident tenant organizers who enter multifamily housing units; the committee adopted an oral amendment capping landlord reimbursement at $50 but ultimately laid the bill on the table after extended debate on tenant organizing and safety.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361698,"Senate committee considers 'squatters' bill to create sheriff-led removal process; action tabled",3048,0,3048000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465&start=0&end=3048","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170348-d93050dff504e41da1cad1514bb4b465/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6361698/Minnesota/Senate-committee-considers-squatters-bill-to-create-sheriff-led-removal-process-action-tabled","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361698-3af20ef625030f872566f5e2f26b65ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145719&Signature=IlpTJP0wtJk9~yeggbi4XMiyt9FuTWUbIjPJMAVhOAZx49n9Mya~Zsi9bbVc-1pcuZN8CgczlGG1njzOPWnVMWsUQc1o4tXxAmBERHRsgVhTFv-0vJfFuVKWj2873yyfBWp9aO6AM-7hGLkxBShQTVbW2Q6wdesUg8asx3nkVS~erdqH8Zj~XJm5z9Ds--pCKK10nCVisdu-dgOYjHCKgaYUhf04aoXKPF9AU3QzanI37A7gAZ1STscICAclM635s6KcwmwBLsyQsPyc-lsjsHEbKseLL77euCJqd55Awzde~0GFdraahC6EsywqY-zTOoQyQd354vCGNjVgGD4xLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate File 558, a proposal to create a sheriff‑guided process for removing unauthorized occupants from private property, was presented and debated in the Senate Committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention. The committee adopted an author's amendment to the bill but later laid the measure on the table.

Supporters said the bill—commonly described in testimony as a response to increasing reports of people occupying vacant cabins, outbuildings or rentals without the owner's permission—would give sheriffs a predictable, lawful procedure and immunities when they follow it. \"This is a bill for the removal of unauthorized persons from real property,\" Senator Croon said while describing the bill's goals. He walked the committee through the bill's subdivisions, describing an owner's right to request removal, required verification and service procedures, a fee mechanism for sheriff time, an immunity provision for sheriffs who follow the process, and civil and criminal remedies for wrongful use of the process.

Proponents emphasized the bill's attempt to balance property owners' need to regain possession with safeguards for occupants. Senator Adkins read a letter from Hubbard County Sheriff Corey Yacchus describing repeated local incidents in which occupants established residency and required lengthy evictions: \"We simply need to make the eviction laws easier for landlords to take possession of their properties,\" the sheriff wrote, according to Senator Adkins.

Opponents and tenant advocates said existing criminal trespass and harassment statutes already provide remedies and warned the bill would curtail due process. Michael Dahl, public policy director for Home Line, argued the state already has tools under Minnesota Statute 609.605 and related statutes and said the bill would allow sheriffs to remove people without a court hearing. \"The bill allows the sheriff to remove a person from the property without a court hearing,\" Dahl said, and he urged the committee to vote no.

Testimony from private property owners and residents recounted local episodes of long, costly removals, damaged property, and people occupying seasonal cabins and outbuildings. Sarah Burtzinger described several stories from her region, including a case in which a tenant's guest refused to leave and one in which a commercial tenant stopped paying rent but continued operating, leaving the owner to shoulder mortgage and tax costs.

Committee members discussed tradeoffs between protecting homeowners, landlords and tenants. Several senators urged further work with law enforcement, tenant advocates and legal counsel to narrow ambiguities the bill could raise in practice; others said the bill sought an appropriate middle ground for cases that are not clearly trespass or clearly a landlord–tenant relationship.

Procedural actions: the committee adopted the author's A2 amendment by voice vote. Later in the hearing the chair moved to recommend the bill for passage and refer it to the Judiciary Committee; that motion was not taken to final passage during the recess. When the committee reconvened it voted to lay Senate File 558, as amended, on the table for further work. The committee did not take a recorded roll‑call tally on the final tabling vote; the transcript records a voice vote and the clerk's announcement that the bill was \"laid on the table.\"

The committee's discussion made several service and process details explicit: the bill's text includes a template complaint form, verification and service steps for sheriffs, a fee provision making the requestor responsible for reasonable sheriff hours, immunity for sheriffs who follow the statutory process, a civil remedy (including attorney fees and damages) for occupants wrongfully removed, and a criminal penalty for false statements submitted to law enforcement. Several senators said the fee language was borrowed from existing eviction statutes.

With the bill tabled, committee members said further stakeholder work was needed—particularly to resolve due‑process concerns and to align the proposal with Minnesota's existing landlord–tenant and criminal statutes.","Lawmakers and supporters described Senate File 558 as creating a structured process for sheriffs to remove unauthorized occupants from private property. Tenant advocates and housing groups raised due-process concerns. The committee adopted an author's amendment but ultimately laid the bill on the table for further work.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Informational hearing: senator pitches sales‑tax exemption on building materials to lower new‑home costs

Committee advances bill to waive county recording fees for removing racial/restrictive covenants

Committee weighs background‑check requirement for nonresident tenant organizers; cap added and bill tabled

Senate committee considers 'squatters' bill to create sheriff-led removal process; action tabled