Committee on Taxes - Mar 26, 2026

Thank you, Madam Curse. I mean, Madam Chair. Madam Cursive. Sorry, May, I shouldn't have cut off at Madam Curse because that probably didn't come across very well. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the Senate Taxes Committee for the opportunity to present my bill. Senate File 4544, tax increment financing bill to assist the city of Eden Prairie. I will be walking through the bill which will take me about 30 seconds. Seconds which is simply 1 section 2, 2 and a half lines long. This bill modifies a previous session law providing the city of Eden Prairie the authority to establish a tax increment financing district. Section one amends the timeline of this authority to extend it to simply a year and a half to 2028. The effective date provides that the extension will be effective after the city complies with the requirements for special local legislation. Madam Chair and members, I really would like to thank you all that have been on this committee from my time here for all the work you've done for the city of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka as well over the years. Last year you provided us assistance in Eden Prairie in exempting the city's aging mall site where again mall rats was filmed and from the blight findings that are that the site is facing. The city would establish a redevelopment district for the Eden Prairie center and adjacent rights of way. We're very excited for the Southwest light rail which has been a 10 year investment. It ends at literally a block from this location. So we're excited for the future. We are here today seeking a little more time to get this work done. As you'll recall, this site is seeking dramatic reductions in property value and like many mall centers across the country, is facing an uncertain future. As you and the community committee recognized last session, the site needs assistance in its attempts to recover. And with me today is Mayor Ron Case, a friend of mine for the last 30 years. 40 years. And Rick Getchaw, who I've known for a dozen years, is to my right. So with that said, committee members, any questions or any further discussion?

Oh, yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a question about why

Did something happen or what is making the extension necessary?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senators Rick Getcho, Eden Prairie City Manager. It's taken some time for the mall

put the project together.

Any other questions or comments? Senator Swasenski, are your. Do you want any further testimony?

Not only at your discretion.

Yes. Yes,

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as I said, the terminus of Southwest Light Rail is going to bring a lot of people to the community and this development.

Thank you, madam. Cursive. And members,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for hearing. Senate File 3694 as amended. This is a request by the city of Minnetonka for a local sales tax.

And I will walk through the bill very quickly and describe the regional significance of the bill. And then I will ask our new mayor, Rebecca Schack, to testify. So, walking through the bill, subdivision one authorizes the city to implement a local sales tax up to 1/2 of 1% if approved by the voters. Subdivision 2 lays out the projects that would be funded by this local sales tax and the amount for each one. They all have significant regional significance and include two fire stations and a therapy pool at our local health and wellness center, along with other renovations, which I'll describe in a minute. Subdivision three provides the city with the authority to issue bonds for a principal amount up to $65.6 million. And. And subdivision four terminates the tax after 30 years or when the amount is reached, whichever is sooner. As I explained, Senate File 3694 would authorize the city to pursue A local sales tax to fund very important and critical city projects. The city would levy a sales tax of 1/2 of 1% for up to 30 years, again to cover these projects, costing just over 65, $65.6 million. More specifically, funds would be used to update two of the city's fire stations. The one near Ridgedale Mall serves the entire region and is our busiest fire station. And there is another one near the new stop on the Southwest light rail extension in the Opus Business Park. Both stations see the greatest number of calls and activities from people coming from around the region to visit and work in Minnetonka and specifically the Ridgedale Mall area. The additional revenue from the sales tax would also be used to update the Marsh, which is a city owned health and wellness center where about half of members reside outside of Minnetonka, living in nearly 150 cities across the region. Thank you for the chance to present this bill. And with that, I'd like to pass testimony over to Mayor Rebecca Schack.

Just introduce yourself.

That's okay. Rebecca Shack.

thank you Chair Rust and members of the committee. And thank you to Senator Johnson Stewart. I will say I would appreciate being confused with Mayor Case any day. I have a lot of respect for him. So thank you for considering our bill and the opportunity to speak with you and answer any questions you may have. Minnetonka is a welcoming community known for strong public services, great natural spaces and a shared commitment to safety and wellness for all. We take pride in being a good neighbor, serving not just our residents, but many people from surrounding communities who work in Minnetonka visit and rely on our public facilities every day. Like many metro cities, we're facing the reality that some of our most important facilities are aging and they weren't built built for how we serve people today. Specifically, our two fire stations are more than 40 years old and they were built for a different era of firefighting and emergency response. Today, our firefighters are responding to more calls, more complex incidents, and working out of spaces that don't meet modern safety training or efficiency standards. The same is true for the Marsh, which is Minnetonka's community wellness center. It supports physical health, mental well being and connection to thousands of people each year. But the 45 year old building is aging. Accessibility is limited and it's no longer keeping up with how people use it. Today we have an opportunity to reinvest in these essential community assets so they can serve our residents, workers and visitors safely and effectively for years to come. That's why we're seeking legislative approval to give our residents the opportunity to decide if now is the right time to move forward in making these investments based on our engagement with the community. People want the chance to consider a thoughtful long term investment plan like this and ultimately have the final say through their votes. I'm happy to provide additional details about each of these three projects and answer any other questions you may have.

There is, Senator. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, there were two other projects that were listed and after consulting with your committee staff, we realized that those were not eligible. Eligible. So thank you very much to your staff who helped us realign our proposal to be more in line with what

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Any questions? Seeing none, Senate trial 3694 is left over.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have a A1amendment to.

Senator Putnam moves the A1amendment. All those in favor please say aye.

Opposed say no. Motion prevails. The amendment is adopted.

Thank you. Senator Zhang. Are there questions or comments? Senator Hemonson Yeager.

So thank you. Thank you, Senator Hemingson Yeager. Maybe the mayor doesn't even need to testify, but I'm going to invite you to do so anyway. Welcome to the committee, Mayor Abrams.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Abrams, and for your kind words for our staff. We really appreciate that. Is there any question, Senator Nelson?

Ms.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Sorry, Madam Chair, I didn't quite hear that.

Yeah.

Sure. So we have Senate file 4181 before us.

Senator Westrom, it's our practice just to go through for the author to go through the bill section by section. I don't know if you have it in front of you. So on your behalf. Section one deals indeed with the sales and use tax authorization, but there is a notwithstanding clause at the beginning of it. Ms. Pollock, what is 477A016 and how does that have an impact on this bill?

So it just refers to the general thing. So we shouldn't. It's going to be an issue in some other. That notwithstanding clause is going to be an issue in some other local sales tax proposals. So I want people to get public and our members to get used to seeing that. And this one just is a notwithstanding that general prohibition. And then in sub 2, it talks about the construction of the new Library In Subdivision 3, the bonding authority and then the termination that Senator Westrom mentioned expires at the earlier of ten years after the. After the tax is first imposed or when the county board determines that the amount derived from the. From the taxes is sufficient and it makes a reference to the. To the. To the referendum. The Senator Westrom spoke and also there is in to the regional significance. And I would direct members attention to page three of the handout from. From the county explaining and emphasizing the regional regional benefits. We have. Mr. Ketchmarick and Mr. Kevin Lee to testify. Who would like to go first?

If you'd identify yourself for the record then please give us your testimony.

Thank you very much. Mr. Lee, would you introduce yourself for the record?

Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Westrin, is there a house companion to this request?

Okay, thank you very much. Are there questions or comments for Senator Westrom or the testifiers? Seeing none. Thank you very much for the presentation. Good luck with your projects and Senate file.

4181 is laid over.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, this Senate file before you is similar to what we just heard, however different in that it's focused on the City of Alexandria for a project at the Runestone Community center, which is a project they have been working on for in some phases. And this would fund one of the next phases, the bigger phase with sheet of ice and some other community rooms and areas for gathering. The Runestone Community center in Alexandria is uniquely located adjacent or on the Douglas County Fairgrounds, a big large open parcel that makes itself conducive for gatherings. Lots of hockey games are played out there, as well as other spring shows and other shows throughout the year in the current facility, which needs some updating as well as has been outgrown. And so there's a lot of open space. And so adding on and remodeling this facility is a good use of an existing building. An existing location and has lots of infrastructure in place. Aside from the week of the Douglas County Fair, this facility always has ample parking and is easy to get to for visitors from around the whole region and sometimes around the whole state. And so Madam Chair, what this proposal would do would help fund if the voters approved, and I want to stress that this is subject again to a referendum, would approve up to a quarter cent sales tax in the city of Alexandria. And as you heard the last testifiers, this would be coupled and there's been coordination intentionally with the county. So not talking more than a half cent between the two if the voters would approve both of them. And so this quarter percent would be targeted towards this project. Madam Chair, if there's some other details in the bill, I would welcome Senate counsel to highlight those provisions. I didn't study each provision critically for this presentation, but I did wanted to, I did prepare for the overarching reason and the background of this and happy to have the Senate counsel weigh in

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I'd like to defer to Marty to go first if that is all right.

Thank you, Madam Chair and senators, for the record, my name is Marty Schultz and I am the City Administrator for the city of Alexandria. We appreciate your consideration of our request to bring before the voters a question of whether the city should impose a local sales tax. And I also want to thank Senator Westrom for being here today with us. The Runestone Community center has served as a regional hub for West Central Minnesota since it opened in 1978. From the beginning, this community center has been a multipurpose facility providing opportunities for recreational activities, trade shows, educational events, concerts, rodeos, and more. Beginning in the early 2010s with an event center feasibility study, community members have been in an ongoing conversation with the city on the need for additional floor space. Although the facility had grown from one arena to two by 2000, it still was not able to keep up with demand. Due to growth in sports such as girls hockey and the need for flexible event space in our community and region, the City Council eventually settled on a phased project with phase one and two completed in September of 2025. This work included significant renovations and expansion, expansions to existing lobby and support spaces, and some very much needed accessibility improvements to the facility. The third and final phase of this project, the project for which we are before you today, is the construction of a third multi purpose arena and some additional renovations in the facility. The City Council has determined that the regional significance of the project makes a local sales tax an appropriate for funding mechanism. As I previously noted, the community center has served as a gathering place for the region since it opened. Over 20,000 people annually attend dry floor events at the facility. In fact, we kicked off our annual calendar of events this past weekend with 1200 people attending the Rudy's Week Decoy Show. The local figure skating club, Girls and boys Youth Hockey and Curling Club count among their members and Participants residents of 36 cities and 10 counties in West Central Minnesota. Lastly, hockey tournaments, figure skating competitions, curling bond spiels bring hundreds of teams and individual competitors from Minnesota, surrounding states and even this past year one from Canada. The economic impact of the current facility, according to statistics provided by Explorer Alexandria tourism is $17 million per year. Should this project move forward, programs that serve the region can continue to grow. Madam Chair, thank you for your time. I would like to introduce City Council member Nicole Mase.

Thank you. Madam Chair, My name is Nicole Mase and I serve as a council member for the Alexandria the City of Alexandria. I'd like to highlight our collaboration with Douglas county as we hope to advance to important projects our Community center and the proposed construction of the new county library which would actually be located right in the ward that I represent. Our community takes pride in the strong communication and partnerships with the City, Douglas County, Alexandria Public Schools and the Alexandria Community and Technically Technical College. As we work together to move these projects forward, we determined that each jurisdiction would request a quarter sent local to tax. If both measures are approved, Alexandria area's local sales tax would align with other other regional center cities that have implemented a half cent local sales tax. So thank you for your guys time and consideration with this and we'll answer any questions that you might have.

Madam Chair, there is. There is with Representative Fransen also.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And this third bill, thank you for. And to your committee administrator for helping line these all three up in order. That was very, very handy and helpful for bringing testifiers. But this one also does have a House companion with Representative Franson. Significant projects are happening out in western Minnesota. And so I recognize that this is, this is about 10% of your request this year. So I appreciate your indulgence. But Madam Chair, this is a little bit different, but similar to the prior bills with the city of Sauk Center. And here with me today is Vicki from the city of Sauk center to testify more to this project. But this project was already approved by the local voters once at a $10 million request level that had passed. Some time has passed. And by time they've gotten to the part where MnDOT is coming in to do a project on Main street, which is what the city always wanted to coordinate with, is updating their water, sewer and infrastructure at the same time to not have to dig up a road two different times. That is slated to be in about 2028. However, the project costs have gone up significantly since the legislation was initially passed. A half cent sales tax in the city of Sauk center, and so the approval before that the legislature actually gave them was for 10 million. And this new request is. Is for 20 million. Up to 20 million. Similar same project in discussions with the city in the engineers, they think this is a high estimate, much higher than it probably would come in at. But they also recognize the significant increase in some of the costs and inputs and labor since it passed, which was about five, six years ago. And so in keeping with the idea of not having to come back again, this request is for 20 million instead of 10 million. It would still, as you'll see in the bill, be subject to a new referendum by the voters locally. And so that would occur again. The voters would have to decide if this increase in cost is something they would still support at the same time that the city city project or the MnDOT project of Highway 71, which is a main artery, if any of you have traveled out there north and south from Wilmer up through Sauk center to Long Prairie, Bemidji, basically cutting the state in half with the major highway. So, Madam Chair, that is the gist of the project and the bill before us.

Madam Chair, this is slightly different because when this tax was authorized in 2019, we did not have those definitions of a capital project. And so there would not be a need to not withstand that definition now because it didn't exist at the time.

Thank you. I'm Vicki Willer. I'm the city administrator for Senior center. And as Senator Westrom said, this is different than the other projects that you've heard today. This is an extension of a request of a modification of an existing sales tax that we have had in place for about five years now. As he said, the voters did vote positively for this and the things that have changed since we initially proposed it. Of course, our estimates were all pretty pre Covid numbers. Nobody anticipated that would happen. So we had a great deal of increase of costs. A couple other things that have changed is the city is going to be tasked with the corridor or taking the stormwater off the corridor. With all the new requirements for the stormwater. MnDOT, there's no place for them to build storm ponds to take care of the stormwater. So we're going to be upgrading our stormwater systems to take that water out through our system. So there's some other things in the project in addition to the increased costs that have made us change this project slightly. It is still the same project as far as all of our infrastructure that is currently going to be replaced with MnDOT. This has been a project that MnDOT's been wanting to do since 1990. We hope this is the time that they actually get finished. And I think we're well on the way. MnDOT's well on the way to the design, so we're very excited to make it happen. And the city council of Sauk center is just requesting that you are favorable. Trunk Highway 71, as you know, goes all the way from Texas to Canada. Sauk Center's main street is the original main street as designated by the State Historical Society. And so because of that and because of all the truck traffic and everything that travels through Sauk center, it is something that is very important to the state of Minnesota and to our community. So we really hope. And the city of Sauk center is requesting your favorable consideration of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just thought I would mention that MnDOT just updated as of February of this year, what we call the cost participation policy. This project might not be captured in that because of the reasons that were mentioned earlier. This precedes. Might precede that adoption of that policy. But if at all possible, you know, you might. Might want to take a peek at that to see if there might be more that could be picked up by the Department of Transportation on some of the elements of the project. I hope. I hope it applies in your case, because that would be a big benefit to your community.

I'm sorry, you need to address the chair first.

Thank you, Ms. Willer. Anything else, Senator Dibble?

Thank you. Senator Dibble, are there any other questions or comments for Ms. Willer or for Senator Westrom? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Senator Westrom. Senate file 4539 is laid over.

You bet.

Senator Dibble, now we have your two bears.

The next bill is Senate file 2437. This is our last three bills are not local sales tax proposals. Senator Dibble moves the A2amendment. All those in favor? It's an author's amendment. Please say aye. Opposed, say no. The motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. Senator dibble, Senate file 2437.

Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Diboll, I think that the biggest thing in my mind is that change in the definition or the inclusion in section 1 in paragraph 4. As you mentioned, A501 can now have an extremely, well, relatively speaking to the commercial operators, a very beneficial rate. And I note also on the revenue estimate that Senator Dibble was referring to that there are there would be about 200, the Department of Revenue estimates 200 non profit generators that would change from commercial to the residential rate. So that could be. And actually the cost to the state is, we would say is minimal in that sense. But it could be very significant to those organizations. The testifiers then, unless there are questions for Senator Dibble, tester fires, I welcome Ms. Barker.

Are there questions or comments for the testifier? Then we'll move to the second one. Ms. Miley Galliford, welcome to the committee. If you'd identify yourself with a record, thanks.

Thank you very much. I will note in the, in the amendment, Senator Dibble is moving the effective date and that this is a bill from last year that was introduced over a year ago. We did not, I don't know whether we heard it, but it was not included in our omnibus bill. It certainly more than likely to be included this year, but that was necessary to change the effective date. So that's why it's changed is why if you look at the the introduction date, it was March, March 13, 2025. Are there questions or comments for Senator Dibble? Senator Nelson?

Thank you.

Aye.

Thank you Madam Chair members for the opportunity to present Senate file 4518. And I don't actually have the bill in front of me. Oh, here it is. So I'd also like to thank my co authors, Senators Miller and Champion. Yourself Madam Chair and in a few days, Senator Nelson. So Madam Chair members, very quickly, a short time ago, a few years ago we established chapter 428B to allow for the establishment of tourism improvement districts. So the bill is written to directly to chapter 428B. The amendment deletes the first section of the Bill which would make some modifications within the sales tax chapter. This has to do with sales taxes. And so it's thought maybe just to approach the change that's requested directly in the TID chapter. And so what that would do, Madam Chair, is to allow for those circumstances in which TID fee is placed on the bill or the invoice that hotel guest would pay at the conclusion of their stay. In those instances, if that item is separately stated. I think in Minneapolis, where there is an ordinance now in effect and a TID has been established and the fee is being collected, that's about 2% or 2% of the cost of the hotel stay, that fee in and of itself would not be subject to sales tax. And then there is a change to the effective date kind of how it's worded. The gist is that we're trying to make this retroactive. Before I forget, I also want to thank Ms. Pollock for a lot of work that has been done since this problem was placed before us, brought to our attention in analyzing why there was a misunderstanding or why it was construed to be taxable. That took a lot of research and effort. So thank you for that. And then helping us sort out how to return to the original legislative intent that Senator Pietzik had when she first presented this proposal.

Madam Chair, it depends on

language in law of how the charge is imposed. As you said, the definition of sales price and what is sales subject to sales tax can get very complicated. Generally, if a service charge is imposed on the seller, it is subject to. It is part of the sales price. If the service charge is imposed on the consumer and the law authorizing the service charge to be imposed states that the business may impose the charge on the consumer, then it would be excluded, which is what Senator Dibbles.

Bill is doing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So am I correct in assuming that the main purpose of this bill is to provide clarity to the community, business community, as to what they can and cannot do? And have we had problems with inconsistency as relates to this issue previously, Senator Dibble? Thank you, Madam Chair. The short answer to both your questions is yes. So what this bill seeks to do is to. Is to make clear that the hotels, and I'll just mention, parenthetically, it was the tourism industry, if you will, the hotels themselves, that initiated this idea. That's how the TID chapter is set up. It's upon petition of the benefiting entities to their local authority, the city council, and then the ordinance can be enacted and. And then the fee can be collected. And so it clarifies that if we don't want to actually have to construe or pay a sales tax on what is a fee or a tax, you know, a tax on a tax, then it. Then it would need to be charged to the customer, made clear as a separate line item in the invoice that the customer pays, and then. I'm sorry, does that answer the entirety of your question? Okay. Get it clear in my mind. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Certainly. Thank you. Mr. Tennant. Senator Dibble, there's Sandy Christensen listed also as a testifier.

Okay. Are there questions or comments for the testifier or for Senator Dibble? Senator Nelson.

Senator Dibble?

Pollock could explain how that worked too. Ms. Pollock?

So who can answer that question? I see her. Welcome to the committee, Ms. Behrs.

committee, for the record, my name is Joanna Behrs. I'm the legislative director for the Minnesota Department of Representative Revenue. And Madam Chair, we will have to work with businesses on how to get that amount refunded. Usually what will happen when there's a refund due? They will go and file their taxes and then minus out the amount for that month and then take the refund from their. Their sales tax period.

I don't understand exactly how it all is going to work, but I understand understand that it might involve a tax refund. And I still don't understand how it all is going to work, but I think there's probably time to figure out what that's going to look like.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam Chair. Though with that introduction that you just made, I feel like I'm keeping us from break, so perhaps I should be extra efficient. Madam Chair, thank you for. And members, thank you for hearing Senate file 4253. At its base. This bill basically just closes a penalty loophole when it comes to specific operations of hospitality industries in the state of Minnesota. Senate File 4253 fixes a problem by decoupling automatic liquor posting from a taxpayer's recognized abatement application. Now I'll explain the bill itself. Members. It is not especially long or particularly complicated. It's fairly straightforward. There's one major section split into three individual parts. The first reads, Notwithstanding Missile Statutes 270 c.725, the Commissioner of revenue is under no obligation to list the qualifying taxpayer whose business is in place of public accommodation. What's most significant about this, Madam Chair and members, is that currently the commissioner has all kinds of authority to penalize or to restrict or to impose whatever he deems commissioner deems necessary when a business has not paid its taxes. But when it comes to hospitality specifically, he is obligated he is forced to essentially stop the flow of liquor to these establishments. What this would do is increase the commissioner's flexibility and eliminate the obligation, though he still would have the opportunity to

The second section of the bill is one of definitions, firstly, defining a qualifying taxpayer. A qualifying taxpayer in this circumstance is one who is currently in abatement. So basically, we've got a restaurant or a bar that's been operating, doing its thing, but it's gotten behind on its

This would allow that qualifying taxpayer, who is currently in the process of abatement, to continue to operate as a restaurant and to continue to serve the alcohol that is essential for the operations of that restaurant. So, in essence, what we're doing is we're kind of the status quo. We are taking a business that's struggling, trying to work with them so that they can pay their bills, but we're taking away part of the lifeline that they use to pay those bills in the first place. All this does is take away the obligation of the consumer commissioner to do that to these businesses. The second part of that section refers to the abatement situation. Then there is a definition of public accommodations. And last, this is a temporary provision, Madam Chair, that expires on December 31, 2026, and that is the last portion of the bill itself. Now, members, I don't know how many of you have worked in restaurants, but I've worked in a lot of them. My first job ever, when I was at sports 14 and a half and I was washing dishes in a diner. I probably worked in seven or eight restaurants since then. Every one of them is precarious. Restaurants, at best, have a 1, 2, maybe 3% sense of profit per the year.

Restaurants and bars are a particular component of our economy that is always in danger. Members, all this does is create a little bit more flexibility in the Department of Revenue, so that when hospitality industry is struggling a little bit, we're not going to kick them when they're down, and we're going to help them enable themselves to continue operating. Madam Chair. That is the essence of the bill.

That's an excellent point.

I have no objection to it.

I would, madam Chair. With your permission, I'd like to move that the.

Aye.

Thank you, madam Chair. And I certainly have no problems with this bill. I'm just curious exactly what how much of a problem or how many payers are currently having difficulty. Are there any numbers regarding that issue? Senator Putnam?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Weber, for the question. To be totally candid, this is kind of a new issue to me that I learned about a couple weeks ago, and so I don't have that detail, deeper knowledge or that math for you right now. I'm hoping there's a possibility that our testifier might have some sort of general sense. But I do. As I learn more about this issue, it just doesn't seem to make a ton of sense to me, regardless of how many folks it affects. But again, I expect that the testifier can probably help us out a little

Senator Weber.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning in support of Senate file 4253. My name is Angie Whitcomb and I serve as the President and CEO of Hospitality Minnesota. We are the trade association representing restaurants, hotels, resorts and campgrounds across our great state. And for a number of years, Minnesota's hospitality industry has been navigating an extraordinarily difficult stretch. The Department of Revenue has identified a legitimate tool to provide temporary relief to businesses experiencing documented hardship. Hospitality has worked in partnership with the Department to communicate that option to our members. And in that process, we identified this unattended cost consequence. As the Senator stated, under current law, a business that is 10 or more days delinquent in filing or payment can be placed on the liquor posting, which means that business cannot purchase retail taxable liquor. No wholesaler, no manufacturer and no brewer can deliver any product to that business. For a restaurant or hotel, holding a liquor license being posted is not a minor inconvenience. This is a chilling effect that discourages our operators from using the very relief mechanism the state has created for moments of need. This bill will create a bridge between the two systems that are currently working against each other. And it would give the Commissioner of Revenue temporary authority to hold a qualifying taxpayer off the liquor posting list when that business has already filed a request for abatement. It applies exclusively to places of public accommodation, hotels, restaurants, hospitality businesses. It's targeted, it's narrow, and it's temporary. I think it's important to note it does not forgive the underlying tax obligation. It simply prevents a procedural penalty from undermining the relief process. Our members are small, often family owned businesses that have employed tens of thousands of Minnesotans and have been reliable contributors to the state and local revenue for decades. I want to thank Senator Putnam for bringing this bill forward and thank you for your support of this bill. And I'm happy to answer any questions if you'd like me to address Senator Weber's question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That was pretty efficient.