Senate Finance flags line items in General Appropriation Act 2025 for follow-up, highlights housing, water, libraries and PFAS funding

Senate Finance Committee staff and members reviewed the General Appropriation Act of 2025 on multiple targeted items Wednesday, identifying several line items that need follow-up before the committee finalizes decisions.

Committee staff member Charles summarized key flags and open questions, noting, for example, that “there was 40,000,000 that was included in senate bill 2 for transitional housing,” and that the House bill “earmarks 90,000,000 from the 100,000,000 for New Mexico's 2 largest population centers leaving the balance of 20 for the rest of the state.”

The briefing mattered because it highlighted how differences between the House, Senate and executive recommendations could shift the distribution of limited one‑time and recurring funds. Committee members asked staff to verify bill ties, contingency language and whether agencies can expend proposed funds within the fiscal year.

Most important items flagged

- Transitional housing: Staff said $40 million appeared in Senate Bill 2; the House version contains earmark language directing $90 million of a larger appropriation to the state’s two largest population centers and leaving roughly $20 million for the rest of the state. The committee agreed this earmark language may need policy discussion before adoption.

- Mortgage Finance Authority/new program: Staff identified a proposed $250,000 new program at the Mortgage Finance Authority and said “there's currently not contingency language in house bill 2,” calling it a decision point for the committee.

- Crime reduction grants and Sentencing Commission: Staff reported that the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) recommended moving funding to the Department of Finance and Administration because grants administered by the Sentencing Commission were not being evaluated; HAFC moved some money back to the Sentencing Commission while a related reform bill advances.

- Secretary of State office move: A $100,000 item intended to cover relocation costs for the Secretary of State was described as likely sufficient for moving costs if the legislature chooses to fund it.

- Economic development and film credits: Staff identified multiple economic development increases including $500,000 for filmmaker grants and larger increases for incubators, commercialization and talent recruitment; several items were noted as HAFC or LFC “ads” that need sponsor intent clarified.

- Outdoor and trails programs: An outdoor equity grant program has recurring and legacy‑fund support; staff noted a $3,000,000 request would combine with $565,000 from an existing legacy fund appropriation to support outdoors exposure programs for disadvantaged youth.

- Rural libraries: Staff described a proposal that would increase recurring support from roughly $25,000 per rural library to an additional one‑time $50,000, producing about $75,000 total per rural library (recurring amounts to be confirmed).

- Wildfire thinning and capital funds: Staff characterized a total package of roughly $30 million for additional thinning in high‑risk areas, noting the money is spread across capital outlay, House Bill 2, contingency items and federal/legacy fund sources.

- Non‑tribal Indian water rights settlements: HAFC increased a proposed amount from $20 million to $25 million; staff reminded members that the settlement requires congressional action and that prior appropriations of $20 million remain unspent.

- Strategic water supply and aquifer mapping: House Bill 2 as drafted included $40 million for a strategic water supply initiative; staff also referenced a multi‑year Bureau of Geology aquifer mapping proposal that could total more than $175 million over 12 years, with an initial $19 million request to expand monitoring and mapping capacity.

- PFAS testing: LFC recommended $2,000,000 for PFAS testing and corrective action contracts; staff said the Environment Department has used corrective action funds for some testing to date and asked the committee to decide the most appropriate funding vehicle.

- Reintegration and hepatitis C treatment: Staff described multiyear appropriations aimed at offender reintegration and continuing hepatitis C treatment, noting prior multi‑year appropriations beginning in 2020 and that not all previously authorized funds could be expended in one year.

What the committee asked staff to do

Members repeatedly asked staff to: (1) confirm which line items are tied to specific bills and add contingency language when appropriate; (2) identify whether agencies can expend funds in a single fiscal year or whether a fund transfer/multi‑year appropriation is required (the Environment Department asked that a large water appropriation be treated as a fund transfer because it cannot expend the full amount in one year); and (3) follow up on HAFC “ads” and the intent behind several economic development and program increases.

Context and next steps

Staff repeatedly told the committee that many line items flagged are subject to bill language, timing and agency capacity. Several items—especially large infrastructure and water proposals—were described as multi‑year efforts that may be better structured as fund transfers or capital outlay projects. Committee members tasked staff to supply bill numbers, contingency language and agency execution plans before final action.

Ending

No formal appropriations were adopted during the briefing; staff left the committee with a list of line items for immediate follow‑up and asked members to indicate priority items for the next meetings.