Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Broad Support for Trade Port Development Bill; Members Table Measure for Fiscal Review
Summary
Lawmakers and local leaders praised House Bill 19 as a tool to convert New Mexico’s transportation corridors into economic hubs, but the Taxation & Revenue Committee tabled the bill after questions about fiscal impact and program rules.
Representative Lundstrom, sponsor of House Bill 19, told the House Taxation & Revenue Committee the bill creates a Trade Port District program to direct a portion of state gross receipts and motor vehicle excise tax revenue to infrastructure projects that support logistics, reshoring and onshoring.
The bill would designate trade port districts after a criteria-based application process administered by the Economic Development Department, establish an advisory committee to help prioritize projects and authorize public-private partnership incentives. Representative Lundstrom said the proposal includes a 10-year sunset and that estimated revenues in the fiscal impact materials show about $73,000,800 in gross receipts tax and about $12,000,000 in motor vehicle-related receipts in fiscal year 2026, with an estimated total of roughly $550,000,000 over 10 years to leverage other funds.
Supporters described local projects and needs. Marcos Gonzales, executive development officer for Bernalillo County, said the county’s I-40/I-25 corridor effort and a federal grant already awarded make the region a candidate for rapid deployment of trade-port infrastructure. JD Bullington of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce called HB 19 “a smart reinvestment” of gross receipts and vehicle excise revenues into the supply chain that generates those tax streams. Gallup Mayor Louie Bonagridi, City Manager Frank Chapetti and business and labor groups including the Gallup-McKinley County Chamber, New Mexico Federation of Labor and building trades unions spoke in support, citing potential for job creation and use of existing rail, interstate and airport assets.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on program mechanics. Representative Montoya asked why procurement-code exemptions are included; Lundstrom said the exemptions permit faster public-private partnership work and that prevailing-wage provisions were restated only to reflect current law when government funds are used. Members also asked how the trade-port fund would be allocated if multiple projects applied; the sponsor said grant application rules will be developed in department rulemaking and that the advisory committee is intended to bring matching resources so funding likely would be split among several projects rather than awarded to a single recipient.
Tax staff and the committee discussed the fiscal mechanics for the proposed funding source. Representative Chandler and the committee’s chief economist noted a technical question about whether the 1% diversion would be taken before or after the 1.225% local distribution step, and the Taxation and Revenue Department clarified that local governments would still receive their full 1.225% share; the uncertainty is whether the diversion comes from the larger pot before the 1.225% distribution or afterward (affecting how much of the general fund vs. the new trade-port fund is reduced). The sponsor and members acknowledged the bill’s large estimated fiscal impact and the committee practice of tabling major fiscal items for omnibus consideration.
After discussion the committee tabled House Bill 19. Vice Chair Cadena moved to table the bill; the motion was seconded and, by voice, no member objected.
Votes at a glance: House Bill 19 — Motion to table (mover: Vice Chair Cadena; second: Representative Gallegos); outcome: tabled (voice, no objection).
