Transcript Highlights:

• , federal PILT or state PILT for it, so just completely tax exempt; and the third thing is, on a per
• , federal PILT or state PILT for it, so just completely tax exempt; and the third thing is, on a per
• </c><01:42:43.679><c> federal</c><01:42:44.000><c> pilt</c><01:42:44.400><c> or</c><01:42:44.599><c>
• state</c><01:42:44.880><c> pilt</c><01:42:45.159><c> for</c> any pilt federal pilt or state pilt for
• any pilt federal pilt or state pilt for it<01:42:45.719><c> so</c><01:42:45.920><c> just</c><01:42:46.159

Bills: HF25 , HF4

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: pregnancy support, women's health, maternity homes, nonprofit organizations, grant funding, abortion, family services, tax relief fund, budget surplus, surplus revenue, tax rebate, tax refund, one-time refund, income tax, property tax, constitutional amendment, Minnesota Constitution, general fund, budget reserve, taxpayer relief

Transcript Highlights:

• When you gave the example, well, first of all, Beltrami County, why is there no PILT?
• When you gave the example, well, first of all, Beltrami County, why is there no PILT?
• For sovereign tribes who have territory, there is no PILT for that exemption.
• did I miss did I goof that up Mr pilt did I miss did I goof that up Mr chair<01:14:47.560><c> um</c>
• for that exemption um there is no pilt for that exemption um uh<01:14:55.360><c> Red</c><01:14:55.639

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• People don't realize payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT, actually comes from allotment in the general
• Not all of that gets PILT payments.
• This bill all by itself will add another $42,000 a year in general fund money into the PILT payments.
• PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES OR PILT ACTUALLY COMES FROM ALLOTMENT IN THE GENERAL FUND
• Another 553 acres without PILT— somewhere in Clay and Otter Tail, Meeker, and Kandiyohi counties, $5.4

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what at least at that time it took to get a PILT done.
• </c> at that time it took to get uh a PILT at that time it took to get uh a PILT done. done. done.
• Um, I would say I'm not an expert in PILT or pilot negotiations.
• I would say I'm not an expert in PILT or pilot negotiations.
• </c> Um I would say I'm not an expert in PILT Um I would say I'm not an expert in PILT or<03:25:15.200

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we did not cut PILT payments at all. Payment in lieu of taxes.
• Uh, we did not cut PILT payments at all. Payment in lieu of taxes.
• Uh, we did not cut PILT payments at all. Payment in lieu of taxes.
• Uh, we did not cut PILT payments at all. Payment in lieu of taxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I think the PILT, you know, it's supposed to be at market rate, you know, what we would generate
• Chair, Representative Dow, you know, I understand the PILT payments.
• They don’t pay PILT. They pay nothing.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 180, a disaster-funding measure that was amended with a substitute adding reporting requirements for the Natural Disaster Revolving Fund, creating a new funding “waterfall” that could draw first from the executive orders for disaster fund, then the appropriation contingency fund, and then the revolving fund, and removing language tied to the end of a fiscal year. The sponsor said the bill clarifies which disaster funds may be used for natural and non-natural disasters, limits and structures executive authority, and improves transparency. Supporters included the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts and the Village of Ruidoso; DFA raised concern that the transfer language could unintentionally create a deficit and threaten bond obligations. After questions about non-natural disasters, executive orders, and the fiscal impact, the committee voted do not pass on the original bill and do pass on the committee substitute. House Bill 158, dealing with the Government Results and Opportunity Expendable Trust, was amended with a technical change replacing “expendable trust” with “program fund” in several places. The bill would require agencies receiving GROW appropriations to submit accountability and evaluation plans to the state budget division director and LFC director. Sponsors said they had worked with DFA and tried to address concerns raised in a prior veto message. There was no public opposition, and the committee approved the bill as amended. House Bill 271 proposed a one-time $100 million general fund appropriation to the Office of Natural Resources Trustees for public land expansion and restoration, plus up to $30 million for state matching funds for political subdivisions with approved federal disaster assistance. Supporters from outdoor recreation, conservation, wildlife, and local government groups said the bill would help restore fire- and flood-damaged lands, expand access, and support rural economies; opponents or skeptics raised concerns about land management, tax base loss, tribal consultation, and whether the state should acquire more land given New Mexico’s already high public-land percentage. After extended debate, the committee tabled the bill. Finally, House Bill 246 was heard as a Lincoln County/Ruidoso floodplain mitigation bill. It would provide state matching funds so local governments can leverage federal Emergency Watershed Protection dollars to buy out and rehabilitate repeatedly flooded properties, with the goal of reducing future disaster risk. The sponsor and county officials said the program is voluntary, based on pre-disaster valuation, and intended to help residents relocate while restoring floodplains; supporters from conservation and recreation groups said it could become a model for disaster recovery. Committee members asked about property priority levels, voluntary participation, ownership after acquisition, and climate-related planning. The discussion ended with the sponsor describing the bill as a Lincoln County-specific effort tied to ongoing flood recovery and forest-management concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative, Section 1 is referring to the PILT, the payments in lieu of taxes and the assessments
• Section 1 is referring to the PILT, the payments in lieu of taxes and the assessments, and Section 2

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 82, which would extend the Technology Readiness Gross Receipts Tax Credit for 10 years and increase the annual cap from $1 million per lab to $5 million over time. The sponsor and witnesses from Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories said the program helps New Mexico businesses commercialize deep-tech innovations and is unique in the country. Multiple business and economic development representatives testified in support, describing successful projects and job creation. Committee members asked about specific companies, wages, and the program’s impact, but several members raised concerns about the bill’s fiscal effect and the lack of room in the tax package. The committee adopted a substitute that delayed the credit increase by one year, but then voted to table HB 82 by about 5-3. The committee then heard House Bill 142, which would increase the Rural Health Care Practitioner Tax Credit and expand eligibility to underserved urban areas. Supporters, including Think New Mexico and the Greater Albuquerque Chamber, said the credit has not been updated in years and could help recruit more health professionals, especially EMTs. Members questioned whether urban areas should be included, how “underserved” is defined, the size of the current expenditure, and whether the credit actually changes provider behavior. Some members expressed concern that the bill could dilute support for rural areas, while others noted that most New Mexico counties are designated shortage areas. The sponsor moved to table HB 142, and the committee agreed. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 58, as amended, which extends the period for metropolitan redevelopment area property tax abatements from seven years to up to 14 years. The sponsor and MRA representatives said the longer period would help projects in blighted areas become financially feasible, especially for housing and redevelopment projects in Albuquerque and other cities. Support came from housing developers, Realtors, chambers of commerce, and economic development groups. Committee members asked about how MRAs are designated, how the abatements work, and why the bill also changed a separate 10-year reference; concerns were raised about the lack of statewide reporting on MRAs. The committee ultimately voted do pass on SB 58 as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• But from a monetary standpoint for protecting fee with PILT, there is approximately $22,500,000.
• For protecting in fee without PILT, that is approximately $16,512,000.
• 01:27:32.880><c> protecting</c><01:27:33.520><c> fee</c><01:27:33.840><c> with</c><01:27:34.360><c> PILT
• fee with PILT, there is $22,500,000<01:27:38.800><c> approximately.
• in fee without pilt that is $16,512<01:27:45.600><c> pardon</c><01:27:45.760><c> me</c><01:27:46.080

Bills: HF2446 , HF2563 , HF2444

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: agriculture finance, broadband development, Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, food safety, food handler license, cottage food, home processed food, livestock dealer, meat packing company, milk marketer, milk marketing license, grain buyer, grain storage, beginning farmer, emerging farmer, farm down payment assistance, livestock investment grant

Transcript Highlights:

• In this bill this year, 4,000 acres without PILT.
• Now, if we can get the<01:58:08.400><c> PILT,</c><01:58:08.800><c> that'll</c><01:58:09.040><c> be</c
• ><01:58:09.199><c> partial</c><01:58:09.520><c> payment</c><01:58:09.840><c> for</c> the PILT, that'll
• be partial payment for the PILT, that'll be partial payment for my<01:58:10.239><c> counties</c><01:
• </c> form of PILT or some other tax form. form of PILT or some other tax form.

Transcript Highlights:

• We did not touch PILT, very important.
• Uh we did<00:57:27.440><c> not</c><00:57:27.680><c> touch</c><00:57:28.000><c> PILt,</c><00:57:28.880
• </c><00:57:30.480><c> uh</c><00:57:30.640><c> I</c> did not touch PILt, very important. uh I did not
• touch PILt, very important. uh I think<00:57:31.040><c> as</c><00:57:31.359><c> we</c><00:57:31.520><
• Uh, Chair Davids, um, we touching Pilt.

Bills: HF2730 , HF2257 , HF2768 , HF1932 , HF2437

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason that's important is that it is an offset in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) formula I
• it's a delay, we can expect that there's at least another $4 million hit that we're going to see in PILT

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• We did not touch PILT. Very important.
• letter noting some other items that were not included in the bill, and we do thank you for not touching PILT

Bills: HF2730 , HF2257 , HF2768 , HF1932 , HF2437

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• But from a monetary standpoint for protecting fee with PILT, there is approximately $22,500,000.
• For protecting in fee without PILT, that is approximately $16,512,000.

Summary: House File 2563, the Omnibus Legacy Bill, was presented as a roughly $779 million package funding projects across Minnesota through the four Legacy funds: Outdoor Heritage, Clean Water, Parks and Trails, and Arts and Cultural Heritage. Chairs Vang and McDonald described the bill as a responsible one-time spending measure with no ongoing base funding, emphasizing habitat restoration, water protection, parks and trails, and arts and cultural heritage. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the spreadsheet, explaining that the bill largely follows the recommendations of the relevant councils and governor, with some additions such as a Wilderness Inquiry partnership, an Ash River sewer extension, competitive grant funding, and several arts and history projects. Staff highlighted the major allocations and structure of the bill: Outdoor Heritage funding for land and habitat projects, Clean Water funding for water-quality work, Parks and Trails funding following the traditional 40-40-20 split, and Arts and Cultural Heritage funding for the State Arts Board, Minnesota Historical Society, Humanities Center, Indian Affairs Council, Department of Education, and other recipients. They also noted policy provisions requiring Clean Water Council recommendations to be broken out by fiscal year, requiring recent 990 forms for arts grantees, limiting arts funds from being used for capital construction except in specified cases, and extending a prior appropriation for the Sunni Lee memorial project. Members asked about land acquisition, the new 990 requirement, and reduced funding for children’s museums; chairs and staff responded that Outdoor Heritage includes land acquisition, the 990 is simply a documentation requirement, and children’s museum funding is lower because more money is now placed in a competitive grant pool. The chairs said the bill reflects compromise and an effort to keep the bill relatively clean of earmarks, while also noting that a Department of Revenue transfer of more than $31 million from legacy funds affected available funding and forced difficult choices. After discussion, the committee laid the bill over, with the chair noting it was also being done in honor of Representative Mary Murphy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee on Federalism and creating a tool for that federalism committee to use to really understand what PILT

Summary: The joint House Appropriations and Senate Finance committee met with a quorum and began by recognizing two pages, who each described their plans after serving and what they learned about the legislative process. The committee then turned to year-end cash transfer proposals presented by Keith Bybee, who explained that the packet contained 14 motions tied to balancing the current and upcoming budgets and managing fund balances. The proposals included transferring remaining legislative remodel funds back into the legislative account and reducing legislative transfers in fiscal years 2026 and 2027; moving unobligated money from the Idaho Broadband Fund and inactive school district building accounts to the general fund; and creating flexibility to use the 27th payroll fund only in an emergency. Other items would redirect interest earnings from several funds, including the budget stabilization fund, public education stabilization fund, water pollution control fund, permanent building fund, ARPA-related funds, and Strategic Initiatives funds, with some proceeds going to the general fund, fire suppression deficiency account, or transportation-related purposes. Members asked about balances, obligations, and the meaning of terms like “unobligated” versus “unawarded,” and Bybee said he would verify some figures before the noon meeting. Several members discussed the broader budget strategy, including the rationale for aiming for a $150 million ending balance and whether the committee should rely on reserve transfers versus other budget adjustments. Some members emphasized preserving legislative control over future supplemental spending and providing a roadmap for new committee members, while others noted that the state’s fiscal situation was partly the result of revenue decisions made by the legislature itself. The committee did not vote on the motions during this session and adjourned until noon, when it planned to take action after members had time to review the updated green sheet and follow up on questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:31:20.480><c> It's</c> one called another one called PILt.
• It's one called another one called PILt.
• And they take a send us our PILT money?
• Why do we care about<00:31:48.960><c> PILT?
• because you took that stuff about PILT?

Bills: HB3422 , HB3394 , HB1998 , HB2808 , HR1190 , HB3381 , HB3301 , HB2225 , HB3352 , HB1713 , HR910 , HR1082 , HB1520 , HB1664 , HB1767 , HB2269 , HB1679 , HB2481 , HB1737 , HR260

Keywords: small business, capital formation, securities exchange act, SEC, Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, women-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, underrepresented entrepreneurs, rural businesses, natural disasters, hurricanes, small business investors, capital raising, fundraising, crowdfunding, angel investors, venture capital, state securities commissions, blue sky laws, business outreach

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative, Section 1 is referring to the PILT, the payments in lieu of taxes and the assessments

Bills: HB248 , HB309 , HB332 , SB48

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Keywords: general obligation bonds, GO bonds, capital projects, bond election, property tax levy, state debt, state finance, capital outlay, senior centers, senior citizen facilities, aging services, long-term services, libraries, library acquisitions, broadband for libraries, higher education, university capital projects, community colleges, tribal schools, special schools

Transcript Highlights:

• But we get a lot of PILT in June, which is a lump sum, usually around $2 million.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• But we get a lot of PILT in June, which is a lump sum, usually around $2 million.

Bills: HB63 , HB64 , HB184 , HB200 , HB47 , HB48 , HB2 , HB9

Committee: Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the expected impacts of House Bill 9 on private detention facilities and the surrounding counties and municipalities, focusing on Cibola County/Milan, Torrance County/Estancia, and Otero County. Corrections Secretary Alicia Lucero explained that the Corrections Department does not oversee the immigration detention facilities directly, but said the department could help displaced workers through hiring fairs and expedited hiring into state positions, and suggested possible alternative uses for the buildings such as behavioral health treatment, training campuses, or transitional living centers. She also noted that a memorial would task several state agencies and affected counties with exploring alternate uses and economic options, and that Workforce Solutions had scheduled job fairs in February for the affected communities. Local officials described major fiscal and community impacts. Cibola County and Milan said the loss of the facility would reduce gross receipts tax revenue, force service cuts, and potentially shrink the county budget substantially; they also warned that the village uses the detention population to support federal grant applications and industrial park development. Torrance County and Estancia said the closure would eliminate jobs, reduce GRT revenue that funds public safety, and require transporting prisoners to other facilities at much higher bed rates, with estimated annual impacts around $3 million. Otero County reported 284 jobs and $20.8 million in payroll at risk, along with about $3 million in annual GRT and a $68 million facility that could be foreclosed if bonds defaulted. Committee members pressed for more precise numbers, including employee counts, transport costs, current bed costs, and the total fiscal impact after accounting for existing contract payments. Several members emphasized that each facility and community is different and asked for separate, detailed plans, including short-term cost replacement and long-term economic diversification. There was discussion of possible hold-harmless assistance, emergency bill drafting, and coordination with Workforce Solutions, Economic Development, and higher education partners. No formal vote was taken; the chair directed staff and agencies to meet the next morning to continue developing an emergency response and requested more detailed information from the counties and the department.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the issue with the federal dollars, as usual, it's kind of like PILT.

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from February 27 and March 3, 2026, then heard House Bill 2013, which would require ADEQ to submit an exceptional event demonstration to EPA when a wildfire on federally managed land affects Arizona air quality. The sponsor said the bill would help Arizona’s ozone/nonattainment situation by ensuring wildfire-related exceedances are excluded from official counts. Sierra Club opposed the mandate as duplicative and costly, and ADEQ said it was neutral but concerned about requiring submissions that may not meet EPA’s regulatory-significance standard and could take about 200 staff hours each. HB 2013 received a do-pass recommendation by a 5-3 vote. The committee also approved House Bill 2156, appropriating $250,000 to the Livestock Compensation Fund, after testimony from opponents raising transparency, conflict-of-interest, and funding concerns; supporters argued ranchers need help with depredation losses. HB 2156 passed 5-3. House Bill 2113, which would require RUCO to intervene in utility rate cases when a proposed residential rate increase is 100% or more, drew testimony from the sponsor about rural customers facing large increases and from RUCO saying it lacked the staff and budget to take on the added workload. The chair and sponsor discussed adding an appropriation or lowering the threshold, but no amendment was ready. Opponents argued the bill would divert RUCO from larger cases, while supporters emphasized protecting rural ratepayers. The committee gave HB 2113 a do-pass recommendation, 6-2. House Concurrent Memorial 2011, urging Congress to delist the Mexican gray wolf and return management to states and local authorities, was supported by the sponsor and ranching-focused testimony citing livestock losses, while opponents said the species remains endangered and recovery should stay science-based. HCM 2011 passed 5-3. The committee then considered House Bill 2026, which would let ADWR evaluate water availability for certain developments by looking only at the proposed source or sources, even if water is commingled in a delivery system. ADWR was neutral but warned that commingled systems make it difficult to track actual water use and could weaken groundwater safeguards; opponents said the bill could enable double counting or more pumping. HB 2026 received a do-pass recommendation, 5-3. House Bill 2056, which appropriates $100,000 for a feasibility study of brackish groundwater desalination sites, was supported by the sponsor as a way to explore additional water supplies; ADWR was neutral but said the study would be new for the agency and that brackish water is still regulated as groundwater. HB 2056 passed 5-3. House Bill 2098, modernizing Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority bonding and financing authority, drew support from Pinal County representatives and passed unanimously, 8-0. Finally, House Concurrent Resolution 2057, supporting a geothermal permitting roadmap and coordination among agencies, was backed by industry advocates as a way to unlock Arizona’s geothermal potential and also passed unanimously, 8-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the issue with the federal dollars, as usual, it's kind of like PILT.

Bills: HB2013 , HB2026 , HB2056 , HB2098 , HB2113 , HB2156 , HB2158 , HCM2011 , HCR2057

Committees: Senate Natural Resources , Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Keywords: air pollution, wildfires, environmental standards, public health, Arizona Revised Statutes, assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply