[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6568046,"mediaKeyId","3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329","parentId",3219419,"title","Committee questions mismatch in funding for fentanyl exposure provisions affecting children and vulnerable adults","audioSeconds",59,"startMs",1497000,"endMs",1556000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329&start=1497&end=1556","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329/thumbnail_1497000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568046/Minnesota/Committee-questions-mismatch-in-funding-for-fentanyl-exposure-provisions-affecting-children-and-vulnerable-adults","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568046-bbc8bd72002e83de2c6f5a28d46d15f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775374179&Signature=WORQ0oJF3NaTTsdteAmpxRC8ijI8x8OtMkHEcv03Cm4dqpmP4QS8r2iCE2pjCC-SkpkQBni1w4~CJ8UKw1KEJ8bEpHKK99BMy8kqjsxS4UVIUQ6fG6AuBftVpUCie7Dqpl2Zdef6Za2RKVSP4~psNDVZFYX~TtFb7fkSgocVYfVtE68W-c1IkV7S05VraSn4z43AxfiF0423d1RTZMjR810BYS~m1GxpvBWJgzPMr~Wtf5IoiCh28U8ZM59jStmZshMTxcdVWwofN8UrkB1pdQ6s0DHntf3fZMZfhUTQ19SXVh3qrx9uNQzcWu5L4~QoZcZXDCLG0MQhkplsNIm4Yw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Legislature","date","2025-05-07T23:02:55Z","article","During the budget walkthrough, Representative Kelly Mueller raised a question about funding for a provision that would criminalize—or expand criminal endangerment for—fentanyl exposure of children and vulnerable adults.

Representative Kelly Mueller, Chair of the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee, said she was trying “to figure that out now, but I just was curious, why that might be different” after noting the provision showed up in more than one place in the side‑by‑side. She asked specifically about the provision appearing in Department of Corrections (DOC) lines and in lines affecting Children, Youth and Families.

John Walls, House fiscal staff, answered that “the fiscal notes for both bills, I believe, was the same. The senate, just at this point, has not chosen to put funding in for children, youth, and families. I don't know if that was an oversight or if the cost was such that they thought the agency could absorb.” Walls’ response was presented as staff’s explanation of the apparent discrepancy; committee members did not adopt a change or take a vote during the session.

The transcript and staff materials show the proposal has programmatic impacts in multiple agencies: it creates a bed impact for corrections in some provisions, requires system and program changes for the Department of Children, Youth and Families, and affects statutory penalties discussed elsewhere in the criminal code articles. Staff recommended further review of fiscal notes and whether the Senate intends to add funding for the CYF impacts before final conference decisions are made.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Conference Committee on HF2432 5/7/25","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members asked why the fiscal treatment of fentanyl exposure provisions appeared in different agency lines. Staff said fiscal notes matched but the Senate did not include funding for Children, Youth and Families, which could reflect an oversight or expectation the agency could absorb costs.","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},6568049,"Conference committee reviews statutory changes transferring Commerce fraud investigators to BCA and creating a financial crimes section",44,1786000,1830000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329&start=1786&end=1830","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329/thumbnail_1786000.jpg","/articles/6568049/Minnesota/Conference-committee-reviews-statutory-changes-transferring-Commerce-fraud-investigators-to-BCA-and-creating-a-financial-crimes-section","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568049-1d8c28d4d719a26212d51a4acf2641a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775374179&Signature=kvGGCNXxPGE4xnHYaHJfne4pp8ZRckIxAz1m00gWLg13b9DPTLYtbMXF-miiwJnw2bZ02uIU1WEmWPzQToni3dtnsbC6lorWcLUF4gUZnQXd8JbkuIHSUhvhJoZF3yCvc2azugiYUX6m0bicbzrOX1bzpfIlMjLJJRorpZR8pA0-qY4RYT1-OiUZ9DUqbMFK0I5vi5u8XQFirvd2l7C4w-8LEy-OiFX9kz6eu-EvRWPHRFP864BXSxqtFJI9YbYoFOraJrEdezSwOlD-KI52Uggnr7DZq1HP5QauewtZtt-dDTKfh0s-W6SWd2yxje7MMoHOdp5g9anM6mmhM7I1gg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nonpartisan staff described statutory conforming changes to reflect a transfer of investigators from the Department of Commerce’s fraud bureau to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the creation of a new financial crimes and fraud section within the BCA.

A staff presenter noted the transfer had already occurred under authority of Minnesota Statute 16B.37 and that the omnibus articles include technical and substantive provisions to complete the statutory transition. The main substantive provision establishes a financial crimes and fraud section at the BCA, its responsibilities, and reporting requirements; many other sections are technical conforming changes to existing statute.

Staff noted the articles also contain provisions to move investigators and related functions into the BCA and to adjust cross‑references in statute. Nonpartisan staff characterized most of the article as technical changes, with the substantive change limited to the creation of the financial crimes section and related reporting duties. The transfer and statutory changes were described as already ordered in February under statutory authority; the articles align statutory language to that administrative action.

Committee members did not take formal action on the statutory changes during the session. Staff offered to provide finer redline comparisons of the house and senate language to assist negotiators on any remaining technical differences.","The conference committee examined conforming statutory changes that formalize the transfer of investigators from the Department of Commerce to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and establish a financial crimes and fraud section within the BCA.",{"_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},6568054,"Conference committee walks through judiciary and public safety budget differences between House and Senate",1141,346000,1487000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329&start=346&end=1487","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219419-4a1f2bba5e8f2567a9139e55499c4329/thumbnail_346000.jpg","/articles/6568054/Minnesota/Conference-committee-walks-through-judiciary-and-public-safety-budget-differences-between-House-and-Senate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568054-6b17fdb7464d279deb715202fcf0a27a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775374179&Signature=LdgKgjOJCOQi74mwXrz1GT~pCDNgGXtq4R8DyqXyExR5L8-JKjNdCZf2rqCoP1xri7L0cIufLfvbxLx5vErCdyBvoTUie1DpzIhi63mbRADOqzkG7~EhvpkQ3qvDnG2zyX4BZzw0xeCiXFude-OMKK1MzWFNIqrrS3xOdpsd3GIP0nRVrPANwEXvCOYwtFHUj8SyqYippyVDD6SSY1TA2FWCFSw27tVRLcwKItmg4MCMXp4dlUjx4DSnOpny5nrZbU8UtxMVO47ggcCjNkMKuRYBbTwpDW2G~dEBMjkEktMHO2GCxiMdCsvaWphY~XWIbiPOrhZ5c5juK5nM87IQ~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nonpartisan fiscal staff led a line-by-line walk-through of the judiciary and public safety budget targets during the May 7, 2025, conference committee on judiciary and public safety.

John Walls, House fiscal staff, told conferees, “everyone should have a spreadsheet in their packets. In the interest of time, I'm not going to read all of the numbers.” Walls highlighted that the senate’s targets are higher than the house’s on many agency adjustments, producing differing totals for several agencies and programs.

The presentation summarized key differences. The House includes $3.5 million for cybersecurity and $4,000,000 for a “justice partner access” line. The Senate includes a higher forensic exam rate (from $136 to $165 per hour) that the House does not. The House includes fiscal deficiencies for interpreters and juries that the Senate does not. The House proposes three positions tied to a state fraud and financial crime effort (a new position at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and two support positions at the attorney general) funded at about $1,800,000 per year; the Senate did not include those positions.

Staff also said both chambers include some common items: a $14,000,000 request from E‑911 funds to maintain emergency communications infrastructure and creation of a crime victims account in a special revenue fund. The House deposits $8,000,000 in fiscal 2026–27 and $2,000,000 ongoing; the Senate proposes a one‑time transfer of $8,366,000 in fiscal 2026. The House includes $1,000,000 per year for two years for armored local radio grants; the Senate does not. For the Philando Castile Training Fund, the House included $5.5 million per year for the upcoming biennium and tails, while the Senate included $6,000,000 in fiscal 2026 and 2027 with no tails.

Walls described several recaptures and transfers: appropriations made to new agencies that were not fully expended would be recaptured and used elsewhere, and multiple fee increases (including civil filing and motion fees on the Senate side) are included as revenue adjustments. Staff also noted a $66,500,000 reimbursement‑contingent appropriation in the Senate related to federal Section 8 rental assistance, intended to prevent evictions if federal funding were reduced.

Committee members asked clarifying questions during and after the walk-through. Chair Kelly Mueller (House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee) asked about the fiscal treatment of a provision addressing fentanyl exposure of children and vulnerable adults and why costs appeared in different agency lines; John Walls replied that the fiscal notes for the bills were the same but the Senate had not chosen to include funding for Children, Youth and Families, “I don't know if that was an oversight or if the cost was such that they thought the agency could absorb.”

The spreadsheet presentation concluded with totals showing the House targets at roughly $80,000,000 for the upcoming biennium (and similar tails) and the Senate totals higher—approximately $106,000,000 for the upcoming biennium. Nonpartisan staff said those totals reflect different approaches to agency operating adjustments, new positions, fee changes and one‑time transfers. The committee did not take formal votes during the session.","Nonpartisan staff presented a line-by-line spreadsheet showing where House and Senate targets diverge on judiciary and public safety funding, highlighting differing agency adjustments, new positions, fee increases and a newly proposed crime victims account.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee questions mismatch in funding for fentanyl exposure provisions affecting children and vulnerable adults

Conference committee reviews statutory changes transferring Commerce fraud investigators to BCA and creating a financial crimes section

Conference committee walks through judiciary and public safety budget differences between House and Senate