SENATE FINANCE GIVES ‘DO-PASS’ TO
RACKETEERING BILL, SENDS IT TO FLOOR
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee heard Senate Bill 70, Add Racketeering Crimes, sponsored by Sen. Craig W. Brandt (R-Sandoval). The bill amends the Racketeering Act to include 11 additional crimes within the definition of “racketeering”; defines “criminal gang” and creates two felony crimes related to membership or participation in racketeering activities of criminal gangs and other enterprises.
Brandt said the bill — which had a committee substitute in the Senate Judiciary Committee— includes sexual exploitation of children, criminal sexual penetration, criminal sexual contact, dogfighting, bringing contraband into places of imprisonment and human trafficking. “This (bill) is to go after the person that’s organizing the groups or these crimes,” Brandt said. “What it doesn’t change is any of the penalties in there, just adds these.” Sen. George K. Muñoz (D-Cibola, McKinley & San Juan) offered an amendment to strike cockfighting as it is currently a misdemeanor for the first two offenses, with the third offense a felony. The amendment was accepted.
J.D. Bullington testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:
“This bill targets the leaders of enterprises that are committing heinous crimes that should be felonies. Specifically, it makes it a crime to solicit or coerce another person, including a minor, into being a member of or working with a criminal enterprise. And we also know that human trafficking is a growing problem, largely because of the organized criminal development that’s involved. Racketeering statutes are designed to go after these kinds of organizations and these kinds of people, and prosecutors need Senate Bill 70 to have a new set of tools to protect the public.”
Joining the Chamber in support of SB 70 were Animal Protection Voters and New Mexico State Police. There was no opposition. A motion was made for a “do-pass,” and the committee passed it with a 10-0 vote. The bill moves on to the Senate floor.
10-0 VOTE MEANS THE SENATE FLOOR IS THE NEXT STOP FOR ‘SWATTING’ BILL
The Senate Finance Committee concluded its morning agenda with Senate Bill 18, False Reports: Crimes of Swatting, Bomb and Shooting Threats, also sponsored by Sen. Craig W. Brandt (R-Sandoval). The bill creates the crime of “swatting” to address false or misleading reports to a public safety agency of an ongoing emergency with intent to cause an immediate agency response. It also makes the crimes of swatting, making a bomb scare and making a shooting threat all fourth-degree felonies.
Sen. Brandt said the bill is not in its original form because the shooting threat became a felony in House Bill 8, which has already been signed by the governor. He said the bill adds swatting, which has become a real issue around the country. (The name refers to false calls requiring a SWAT response.) “We’ve had some instances here in this state, but swatting, right now, is not illegal in this state. This bill makes it a felony to commit swatting,” Brandt continued.
J.D. Bullington testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce. There was no opposition.
“Swatting is a form of violence and intimidation that can leave lasting emotional scars. Senate Bill 18 is going to bring a meaningful consequence by making swatting a felony. It’s what we should do for our children. There was a recent analysis that just in September of this last year, there were 2,000 swatting incidents nationwide affecting our public schools. This costs taxpayers annually a soaring $500 million in terms of school disruptions, lost instructional time, mental health impacts, and of course, there are the costs incurred by emergency responders and first responders. This has become a huge problem, and Senate Bill 18 is an important tool that can help mitigate this situation.”
Sen. Linda M. Trujillo (D-Santa Fe) thanked Brandt for bringing the bill forward and said, “This is a really deep, dangerous activity. And it really rises to the level of what used to be bomb threats when I was a kid.” With a motion for a “do-pass,” the Senate Finance Committee voted 10-0 in favor, and the bill heads to the Senate floor.
QUESTIONS STRIKE IMPORTANT TAX
LIGHTNING BILL DOWN ON SENATE FLOOR
A bill to prevent tax lightning on multifamily housing was struck by lightning on the Senate Floor this morning. Conservative and liberal senators alike voted against it, leading to its demise. Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) carried the bill and explained it to fellow senators: “Senate Bill 186 deals with a property tax lightning issue in our state dealing with multifamily housing. We’ve talked a lot about housing and the shortage of 30,000 units here in New Mexico.”
“This bill ensures that counties continue to see growing valuations through new development, new transactions, but it makes sure that those multifamily valuations that have been tremendously undervalued don’t get brought current and correct all the way up to the top, which could result in almost a 75% increase in property value if that were to happen.”
“So what this bill does is basically allow existing multifamily properties, which are considered units with more than five different units within them under our property tax code, for those that are valued down at the 28% mark, this does put a cap in place so they can be brought up to 40% of value. For new property it gives an option either current and correct or the actual cost of construction. This bill is super important because right now multifamily housing is stuck. The older units are not getting rehabilitated, and newer units are not being built. This bill will allow things to move forward and provide affordable housing and multifamily housing in all of our districts.”
Sen. George Muñoz (D-Cibola, McKinley & San Juan) said, “I think this bill is timed just right. I mean, we have so much money that we want to invest in low-income housing and build new construction. I heard a number of 30,000 houses short in just Albuquerque alone.” However, some senators felt like this tax incentive is a “sweetheart deal” for developers that would undercut local counties, robbing them of revenue. Other senators felt that this would pass the tax burden on to small residential multifamily property owners, like seniors renting out the other side of the duplex or those renting out a home inherited from a parent. Wirth believes, “this is going to stimulate the construction of more multifamily. And so, I actually think local governments are going to get increased revenues as a result of this.”
The majority leader made one final, strong push for his bill: “You know, this is going to create a whole bunch more supply. That’s a good thing, especially when we’re talking about housing and supply by its very nature. When you get enough of it, that helps prices go down. That’s the positive benefit of this. But I appreciate the questions. I think they’re good ones. I really appreciate the debate and respect the different sides of this issue. I think when it comes to housing, it needs to be all of the above. The reality is, I think this bill will increase the supply of housing.”
Minority Whip Sen. Pat Woods (R-Curry, Harding, Quay & Union) said, put some more cards in the deck. Ultimately, too many people questioned the bill for one reason or another. The bill was shelved on a vote of 16-23. The Chamber is supportive of this legislation, and there is a mirror bill in the House. We believe Wirth is exactly right in his description of the benefits of this legislation and its impact on the affordable housing market. We hope legislators can find a way to enact this important reform.
CONTROVERSIAL WATER REGULATION BILL
IS ON ITS WAY TO THE HOUSE FLOOR
We’ve covered a lot of bills this session, but we’ve seen none that attracted so many supporters and opponents as Senate Bill 21, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth and Rep. Kristina Ortez. It would take over all surface water regulation from the federal government. The bill received a “do-pass” recommendation from the House Agriculture, Acequias and Water Resources Committee on a 5-2 vote, sending it to the House floor.
Senator Wirth has worked long and hard to develop this legislation and has amended it several times to accommodate various needs of different groups. It certainly has come a long way, and we tip our hats to the senator for his diligence and patience. Reluctantly, we still have some concerns about the bill, which causes us to stand in opposition, as Chamber President and CEO Terri Cole explained in her testimony:
“It’s a very big leap to take over federal regulation. Adding 50 employees is a real challenge in today’s workforce environment. Where will the qualified employees be found? These aren’t just any 50 employees, they’re employees that require education and, hopefully, some experience. The quality of the workforce matters as they will be charged with important rulemakings and enforcement.
“The Sackett case is almost two years old. We agree with the need to protect New Mexico’s water from pollution. We’re just questioning why this couldn’t be put to interim study to look at alternatives for enforcement that could be easier to implement and less costly.”
The proposed rulemakings are at the heart of those opposing the bill. Many have had bad experiences with rulemakings that exceed or contradict the intent of the Legislature, resulting in appeals and lawsuits. There is, consequently, residual distrust, which, for example, caused the agricultural advocates to argue for language to be included in the bill that guarantees they will have a role in the rulemakings. The list of supporters and opponents is too long to list today but, in general, water and environmental advocates were in support and agricultural, mining and business advocates were in opposition.
What motivates the introduction of the bill is a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as the Sackett decision. The court held that the EPA, under the Clean Water Act, can only regulate flowing waters of the U.S. and associated wetlands. In New Mexico, this only covers about 10% of our waters, most of the rivers and streams being ephemeral or intermittent. In order to protect pollution from being introduced into these kinds of waters, SB 21 would have the state Environment Department take over the administration of the Clean Water Act. New Mexico is only one of three states that haven’t already taken over administration. The takeover process would be phased and likely take two years to accomplish, given the staffing and rulemaking requirements. To some degree, it’s a bit like changing a tire on a car going 70 mph. We’ll see what happens on the House floor.
SENATE PASSES BILL CREATING WATER FUND,
SENDS IT OVER TO THE HOUSE
The Senate floor heard Rep. Liz Stefanics’ (D-San Miguel, Santa Fe, Torrance & Valencia) Senate Bill 376, Strategic Water Reserve, today and approved it 25-15 on a party-line vote. The Chamber is in support of this measure.
Stefanics explained her bill to her colleagues:
“This is not to be confused with the Strategic Water Supply, which is a governor’s initiative winding around right now. This is the Strategic Water Reserve. The Strategic Water Reserve is an important and effective water management tool overseen by the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. It allows the state to acquire interstate stream water rights, through lease, purchase, or donation to benefit interstate compacts or to support threatened or endangered species, including to prevent the listing of new species.”
Stefanics’ bill creates a fund for the Strategic Water Reserve that is capped at $15 million. The catch on this bill is that it’s an empty vessel. It only establishes a fund, but it doesn’t fund it. Funding would come in future Legislatures. “The bill does not appropriate any new money. It simply creates an account in which current or future appropriations can be deposited,” said Stefanics.
The strategic water reserve, created by the Legislature in 2005, grants authority to the Office of the State Engineer and the Interstate Stream Commission to allow certain water rights to be designated for public use and allows the agency to acquire water rights to be held in the reserve. Currently, appropriations made to the strategic water reserve go to the Office of the State Engineer, with funds reverting to the general fund at the end of the fiscal year. Senate Bill 37 would add a non-reverting fund to supplement strategic water reserve functions.
This bill floats over to the House now to begin the committee process there.
LOW-INCOME PUBLIC UTILITY RATES BILL
PASSES ITS FIRST SENATE TEST
House Bill 91, Low-income Public Utility Rates, crossed over from the House to the Senate and faced its first Senate assignment this morning in the Senate Conservation Committee, where it passed 6-3. The bill heads next to the Senate Tax, Business and Transportation Committee.
The bill was sponsored and presented on the Senate side by Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo). It allows the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) to approve low-income rates for gas and electric customers or other programs that can help low-income customers lower their home energy bills. According to sponsors, low-income consumers spend as much as 20% of their household income on utility bills.
Enrique C. Knell supported the bill on behalf of the Chamber:
“It’s pretty obvious that many people are struggling to make ends meet post-COVID, and with the high prices for just about everything. This bill is designed to help low-income utility customers pay their bills. We think of this bill as a short-term measure of necessity rather than a permanent way of life. Our long-term goal should be the creation of many good, high-paying jobs in the private sector.”
El Paso Electric, PNM and New Mexico Gas Co. all support the measure. The bill provides an exception to the general rule of cost-based ratemaking. Currently, the PRC has been given exceptions for economic development rates, rates designed to retain load, or energy-efficiency programs aimed at lowering energy costs for low-income customers. HB 91 would allow, but not mandate, an additional exception. Opposition is based on concerns that the cost of lower rates to low-income consumers will result in raising rates to other customers to subsidize the rate reduction.
VETERAN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
ON FAST-TRACK TO THE SENATE FLOOR
House member Art De La Cruz (D-Bernalillo) wandered over to the other side of the Roundhouse today to present his bill, House Bill 47, Property Tax: Veteran Exemption. De La Cruz presented late Tuesday evening before the Senate Tax Committee.
His bill passed the House 62-0 a few days ago and is now on its way to the Senate floor. The bill enacts two veteran property tax exemption changes that New Mexico voters approved as constitutional amendments in the November 2024 general election. The first change is increasing the property tax exemption from $4,000 to $10,000. The second change expands the disabled veteran property tax exemption to include a proportionate exemption reflecting a veteran’s partial disability. The current exemption only provides the exemption for 100% disabled veterans.
Enrique C. Knell testified on behalf of Chamber members:
“New Mexico is home to 141,000 veterans who are proud of their service in defense of our country. The Chamber is proud of them, too, and we want to make New Mexico more attractive for veterans to serve here and stay in our great state.
“HB 47 is a good investment in New Mexico’s economy and the many veterans who are business owners, consumers, and contributors to our state’s success. We urge your support.”
De La Cruz told the committee there’s a reason to act quickly “This bill is, in fact, time critical because (county) assessors have to give notice to the property owners. And so we actually needed to have this enacted yesterday, Madam Chair and senators, so we need to get this to the floor as quickly as possible because that’s why we declared an emergency, because of that issue.”
Senators did quickly approve the bill on a 9-0 vote and sent it straight to the floor. Once there, if the bill passes without amendments, it will head directly to the governor’s desk for final approval by the executive. Because of the emergency clause, the bill will become law the minute the governor signs it. We’ll let you know what happens.
IN THE HOUSE
ST. MICHAEL’S HORSEMEN RECEIVE PLAUDITS FROM HOUSE
It’s a two-peat. On Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, the St. Michael’s Varsity Boys Football team won their Ivan Head Stadium game against Dexter High School by a score of 28-26, making them the Division 3-A champions two years in a row. Will it be a three-peat? Kansas City couldn’t do it, but we’re betting St. Michael’s can! Go Horsemen!
SIGNING OFF FROM SANTA FE
Two very important crime-fighting bills moved forward today, both sponsored by Sen. Craig Brandt (R-Sandoval). Brandt has championed these measures for more than one session, and his tenacity is paying off. This could be the year both reach the governor’s desk. One deals with broadening the number of crimes included in the Racketeering Act, and the other makes “swatting” (false calls requiring a SWAT response) a crime. The Chamber has supported these measures from the get-go.
Speaking of get-go – get ready for Ash Wednesday tomorrow and go celebrate Fat Tuesday. How did the name “Fat Tuesday” come about? The French name Mardi Gras means Fat Tuesday, because people felt bloated having eaten up all the rich foods before Lent. If you’re down New Orleans way, you’ll hear “laissez les bons temps rouler” (pronounced lay-say le bon tom roo-lay) over and over again at Mardi Gras celebrations. It means “let the good times roll” in Cajun French. The deeper meaning for Fat Tuesday actually comes from its traditional name, Shrove Tuesday. The word “shrove” means to give absolution — to be forgiven. However you say it, Happy Mardi Gras and we’ll see you mañana. Buenos noches.
