Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the House Bill 3 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves House Bill 3 as amended; DOT presents operating budget and long‑range revenue concerns
Summary
The committee received a presentation on House Bill 3, the Department of Transportation’s FY26 operating budget as amended by the House Transportation, Public Works, and Capital Improvements Committee, and later adopted HB 3 as amended to include in the committee package.
The committee received a presentation on House Bill 3, the Department of Transportation’s FY26 operating budget as amended by the House Transportation, Public Works, and Capital Improvements Committee, and later moved to adopt HB 3 as amended. Analysts and the transportation secretary summarized the operating budget, major line items and long‑range risks to state road fund revenues.
Why it matters: House Bill 3 funds NMDOT operations, construction, maintenance and local/tribal road projects. The presentation highlighted near‑term allocations while underscoring structural revenue risks from vehicle fuel‑efficiency and changing vehicle fleets.
Presentation highlights: the committee heard that for FY26 the technical consensus forecast projected total state road fund revenues of about $562,000,000 (a roughly 2.1 percent increase over FY25 operating budget figures used in staff materials). HB 3 as amended included an allocation of about $249,000,000 for personnel costs (the presentation noted NMDOT has reduced vacancies in recent years and needs authority to recruit and retain engineers and other hard‑to‑fill positions). The bill listed roughly $547,300,000 for planning, design, right‑of‑way and construction (including about $465,000,000 in federal funds and approximately $109,000,000 from the state road fund), $92,800,000 for local government and tribal road projects, $64,700,000 for road maintenance contracts and $37,700,000 for road maintenance supplies. The department also identified $9,300,000 in grants to local airports and $33,200,000 in federal transit funding.
Long‑range outlook and revenue risks: DOT staff and analysts walked the committee through the state road fund’s revenue composition (gasoline tax, special fuel/diesel tax, weight distance tax and vehicle registration fees make up over 80 percent of the state road fund). Presenters emphasized that fuel taxes in New Mexico have not been updated in decades (the 17¢ gasoline tax and the 2004 special fuel tax remain low among states) and that rising vehicle fuel efficiency and electrification are projected to reduce fuel‑tax revenues over time. Using DOT and consensus forecasts, staff showed construction costs rising substantially while state fuel related revenues flatten or decline, creating a long‑term funding gap for road construction and maintenance.
Legislative priorities and proposals: DOT staff outlined legislative items the department supported or monitored, including a State Transportation Commission bonding bill to authorize up to $1.5 billion in bonding authority over 10 years (House Bill 145, as discussed), a construction‑zone automated speed enforcement bill (Senate Bill 241) that would allow automated speed enforcement in work zones and a revenue bill (Senate Bill 289) intended to increase recurring revenues to support debt service and transportation project funds. Presenters said automated enforcement in work zones was intended to be deployed only in construction zones, would include advance notice to motorists and was expected to be implemented so that the program largely nets to zero after administrative costs and contractor support because cameras would be used in limited work‑zone circumstances.
Questions from members: representatives asked about equipment and capital outlay requests, whether the package provides enough maintenance funding and how bonding authority would be phased (presenters described a staged borrowing approach rather than a single upfront sale and noted statutory debt ceilings and existing debt must be managed). Committee members also asked about ports of entry, how local project funds interact with capital outlay and Transportation Project Fund allocations, and whether DOT has operating agreements with federal partners (DOT staff said conversations and incident‑management coordination were underway regarding ports and checkpoints).
Vote: Representative Garrett moved to adopt House Bill 3 as amended and to direct staff to include the bill in the committee substitute for House Bills 2 and 3; the motion was seconded and the committee adopted the motion by voice vote with no opposition recorded.
Ending: committee members asked staff to draft HB 3 language into the committee substitute and noted further catch‑up cleanup sessions to resolve remaining technical items and amendments before floor action.
