Senate Finance reviews supplemental requests in 2025 general appropriation act; several items flagged for follow-up

The Senate Finance Committee spent most of the hearing reviewing a line-by-line briefing on special and supplemental appropriations included in the proposed General Appropriation Act of 2025 and flagged numerous items for further information or policy direction.

At a high level, Charles, a Legislative Finance Committee staff member, told the committee that the presentation is a follow-up to questions raised about House Bill 2 and its special and supplemental requests. He outlined a range of items that he recommended the committee (or HAFC/LFC) follow up on before final decisions.

Why it matters: The briefing covered many targeted appropriations and new program requests that would direct one-time and recurring dollars across housing, economic development, natural resources and public safety. Several items are contingent on accompanying legislation or multi-year spending plans, so the committee asked staff to clarify legal authority, timing and whether the funding should be structured as a one‑time appropriation, a fund transfer or a multiyear obligation.

Most significant items and committee concerns

- Transitional housing: Staff noted $40 million included in Senate Bill 2 for transitional housing, while the House version earmarked $90 million of $110 million for the state’s two largest population centers and left $20 million for the remainder of the state. Senators asked whether that kind of earmark language is appropriate for Senate Finance and requested more detail on the House intent.

- New mortgage finance program: A proposed $250,000 new program at the mortgage finance authority was raised; staff said the program does not currently exist and noted there was no contingency language in House Bill 2. The committee asked staff to confirm whether HB2 requests this money and whether a contingency should be added.

- Crime reduction grants and Sentencing Commission: LFC had recommended moving some crime‑reduction grant administration to DFA because grants administered by the Sentencing Commission were not being evaluated; staff said there is a bill moving to reform the Sentencing Commission and HAFC moved the money back pending that work.

- Moving costs for Secretary of State office: Staff recommended $100,000 to assist with a downtown move; they said the amount should cover moving costs because the Attorney General’s office occupies state‑owned space.

- Economic development items: Staff walked through multiple items, including a $500,000 filmmakers grant, increases to New Mexico Partnership funding, two separate $15 million incubator grants (one for operations, one for infrastructure), a $15 million increase to an advanced energy pilot, small amounts for talent recruitment, bioscience development funds and matching funds to leverage federal research. Committee members asked HAFC and LFC to confirm timing and executability of those increases.

- Outdoor and trails programs: Staff said an existing outdoor equity grant and trails infrastructure grant would receive additional funding, including $3 million combined with an existing $565,000 allocation to expand access for disadvantaged youth.

- Rural libraries: The briefing proposed an extra $50,000 per rural library (on top of about $25,000 recurring), bringing the total to roughly $75,000 per rural library. Senators asked staff to confirm the recurring amount and the number of rural libraries (staff said about 58).

- Wildfire thinning and fuel reduction: Staff said total thinning funding across sources would reach about $30 million (20 million in HB2, 10 million in the capital outlay framework, plus other contingent amounts and federal/legacy fund sources). Senators asked whether that amount is sufficient and for details on contingency language.

- Vehicle replacement / litigation costs: The briefing included an executive request and suggested $5 million above capital framework recommendations to cover vehicle replacement and associated litigation costs.

- Water programs and settlements: Staff summarized multiple water items: non‑tribal Indian water rights settlements (questions remain about total settlement costs and congressional approval), a strategic water supply appropriation of $40 million in HB2 and a flagged $50 million transfer that NMED prefers to structure as a multi‑year fund transfer. The Bureau of Geology aquifer mapping request was described as $19 million within a proposed 12‑year, $175 million mapping effort; staff said New Mexico Tech would perform mapping work in partnership with NMED.

- PFAS testing: LFC recommended $2 million for PFAS corrective action/testing; staff explained NMED has been using a corrective action fund and asked whether the new money is needed or how it would be structured.

- Corrections and reintegration: Staff identified recurring and nonrecurring appropriations across corrections and reintegration programs, including a continued $17.8 million from the penitentiary income fund for hepatitis C treatment.

- Education and athletics: The family income index program was discussed as a funding formula reform that could flow roughly $400 million to school districts if enacted; separate multi‑year appropriations were described for athletics at UNM and NMSU (about $3 million a year for one school, $2 million for the other, characterized as “grow” type, multiyear support to stabilize operations).

Process and follow-up directions

Committee members repeatedly asked staff to coordinate follow‑up with HAFC, LFC or the relevant agencies on items they flagged — especially where an appropriation is tied to separate legislation, requires contingency language, or is a new program that lacks statutory authority. Staff agreed to research linkages to bills (for example, whether FAIR program proposals are tied to Senate Bill 81) and to return with clarifying footnotes and memos.

Quotes

"There was $40,000,000 that was included in Senate Bill 2 for transitional housing," Charles told the committee, and he urged members to decide whether House earmark language is the right approach for the Senate.

"We can follow‑up with the department to get a list of what projects are ready to go in one year," the chairman said after transportation members asked whether DOT could spend large cash infusions quickly.

Ending

No formal votes were taken on the individual supplemental items during this briefing. Committee members directed staff to gather additional documentation — including bill cross‑references, multi‑year spending plans, fund transfer language and exact recurring amounts — and to bring clarifying footnotes back to the committee before final action on the General Appropriation Act.

Meeting context: The session produced extensive questioning from multiple senators about trade‑offs between one‑time cash and bonding, the need to attach contingency language to new programs, and whether multi‑year projects should be structured as fund transfers rather than single‑year appropriations. Several items carry medium to high implementation risk because they require legislation, federal approvals, or multi‑year contracting.