Minnesota Senate Building renaming after Kari Dziedzic provision and appropriation
Summary
SF4338 renames the Minnesota Senate Building at 95 University Avenue West in St. Paul as the Kari Dziedzic Senate Building. The bill is a commemorative measure honoring Kari Dziedzic by changing the official name of the state office building used by the Minnesota Senate.
In addition to the renaming, the bill directs the commissioner of administration to pay for any necessary signage changes using available general fund operations appropriations or in lieu of rent under a specified 2025 law. It also prohibits those signage costs from being built into lease rates for fiscal years 2028 and 2029 or otherwise passed on to tenants of the building.
The bill further instructs the revisor of statutes to update references in Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules by replacing "Minnesota Senate Building" with "the Kari Dziedzic Senate Building" wherever that phrase appears. This makes the name change effective across state legal references, not just on the building itself.
Impact
The bill would amend state law and official state references to reflect the new building name, affecting statutory and regulatory citations that mention the Minnesota Senate Building. It also imposes a specific administrative funding directive on the Department of Administration regarding signage costs, while shielding building tenants from any related cost increases in lease rates for the specified fiscal years.
Sentiment
The available information suggests the bill is generally favorable and noncontroversial in tone, as it is a naming bill honoring a former senator and it was reported from committee to pass as amended and re-refer to Finance. No recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts indicate opposition, and the bill appears to have advanced routinely through the Senate committee process.
Contention
The only apparent policy issue is fiscal: who pays for the signage and whether those costs should be absorbed by the state or passed through to tenants. The bill resolves that question by assigning the cost to the commissioner of administration and expressly prohibiting the expense from being included in lease rates for fiscal years 2028 and 2029. No other substantive controversy is evident from the materials provided.