Minn. homeowners‑insurance task force signals support for Fair Plan study, strengthened homes funding and roofing‑code update

The Homeowners and Commercial Property Insurance Task Force met Jan. 7 in Saint Paul and performed nonbinding 0–5 “pulse checks” on three draft recommendations aimed at improving housing resilience and insurance market stability.

Representative Elkins, chairing the session, summarized the three proposals: have the Minnesota FAIR Plan assess the feasibility of offering products to common‑interest communities and affordable housing providers; ask the legislature to fully fund the Strengthen Minnesota Homes program (cited in the meeting as Minnesota statutes 65 a dot 2 99); and recommend that the Department of Labor and Industry pursue incorporation of an IBHS fortified‑roofing standard into residential and commercial building codes through the Construction Codes Council process.

Consultant Katie Hatt, supporting the Legislative Coordinating Commission, explained the process and said results would be tallied without attaching names. On the first recommendation (Fair Plan feasibility) members reported mixed but generally supportive reactions: the tally reported by staff was 2 members at 2, 4 members at 3, 1 at 4 and 4 at 5. Carrie Johnson (MCCD) said she “generally support[s] this” but urged stronger language to move beyond study toward product‑design and structural changes to the FAIR Plan if needed. Aaron Cockey (Insurance Federation) cautioned against altering board composition in ways that would give public members a majority, arguing that those who would pay assessments should retain representative control.

On fully funding Strengthen Minnesota Homes, members raised concern that the phrase “fully fund” lacks a fixed dollar target. Senator Dames said she was “very hesitant” to commit to an undefined promise and ranked that item low for that reason. Aaron Cockey suggested an initial target consistent with the program’s 2023 ask — roughly $35,000,000 — could be included to clarify intent. The pulse check returned stronger support for this item (reported tallies: six 5s; three 4s; two 3s; one 2; one 0).

The third proposal — updating building codes to incorporate an IBHS fortified‑roofing standard — prompted questions about scope and cost. Contractors’ representatives asked whether the recommendation would apply only to new construction; several members recommended adding language to clarify that point and to ensure the Construction Codes Council’s cost‑benefit process would weigh affordability. The pulse check showed a broader distribution of views (one 5, four 4s, three 3s, three 2s and one 1).

Members asked staff to draft bill language for the near‑consensus items and circulate it in advance of the next meeting to allow word‑smithing. No formal votes were taken; the pulse checks are advisory input to staff and the LCC.

The task force plans to return to these items with draft language and, where requested, numeric clarifications (for example a target appropriation) and cost information prior to any formal recommendation to the Legislature.