State senators discussed a measure to cap property-tax assessment changes for lower-rated commercial properties and to provide tax incentives for multifamily developers during a floor exchange in the New Mexico Senate. Lawmakers who spoke framed the proposal as part of a broader response to the states housing shortage, while others warned it could shift tax burdens and fail to protect longtime, lower-income homeowners.

The exchange focused on how the bill would affect commercial classifications and new developments. One senator asked whether commercial properties are rated on an A–D scale; Senator Wirth replied that her "experts say yes." Another senator outlined a numeric example intended to show how assessments would work: an apartment complex purchased for $3,000,000, listed on the tax rolls at 28 percent of $1,000,000, would appear on the tax roll at $280,000 under the scenario presented.

Supporters framed the bill as an incentive to attract developers and add multifamily units. One senator said the incentives are "part of the piece" in addressing New Mexicos housing crisis and welcomed developer participation. Supporters also argued the proposal would invite investment statewide rather than signaling the state is closed to development.

Opponents and cautioning voices raised two primary concerns. First, several senators argued the bill could amount to tax shifting rather than new revenue: county governments would receive roughly the same totals but would collect more from other property owners if assessments are altered. Second, lawmakers asked how the measure would help existing, lower-income homeowners whose property values are rising; one senator urged consideration of a tax-credit approach for those homeowners instead of changes that would alter the tax code.

Participants repeatedly referenced the state tax code and existing tax breaks, including gross-receipts-tax (GRT) mechanisms, as context for how incentives and breaks interact. No formal vote or final action appears in the provided transcript excerpt.

The discussion did not include implementation language or an amendment text in the excerpt, and lawmakers asked staff and colleagues for further clarification and examples. The floor exchange ended without a recorded outcome in the supplied segment.