Panel adopts substitute for HB113 to expand shelter funding; debate centers on payments to individuals

A House committee on Wednesday adopted a substitute for House Bill 113 that changes the measure from a proposed investment fund into a straight appropriation intended to support animal-sheltering infrastructure, spay/neuter efforts and training for animal-control officers.

The substitute was adopted without recorded opposition after sponsor remarks and public testimony. Supporters said the appropriation will help rural shelters that lack space, staffing and training; opponents warned the bill, as written, could fund programs that leave feral animals on the landscape and questioned whether public dollars should be used for private pet assistance.

Why it matters: Lawmakers said New Mexico shelters are strained and that investment could reduce euthanasia and public-safety risks tied to stray animals. Critics said the bill’s language is broad and may create legal and policy problems if public dollars flow directly to private individuals for fencing, kennels or food without clear limits.

The substitute removes creation of a permanent investment fund after consultation with the Department of Finance and Administration and converts the proposal to a one-time appropriation in the current budget bill. The sponsor told the committee DFA had recommended the change because appropriating the available amount directly avoids the complications of starting an investment trust with a relatively small initial balance.

Witnesses who supported the bill included representatives of animal-welfare groups and municipal leaders. Drew Setter, representing the Pueblo of San Felipe, spoke in support. Stacy Sutton Kirby, introduced herself as chief government affairs officer for Animal Protection New Mexico / Animal Protection Voters and Judy Wolf described organizational support from Animal Protection New Mexico.

Opponents and skeptics included Grant Sizemore of American Bird Conservancy, who told the committee: “House Bill 113, as written, would provide public funding for programs that intentionally keep stray and feral animals roaming the landscape, where sterilized or not, they continue to contribute to widespread harms, including property damage, nuisances, disease transmission risks, and threats to wildlife.”

Lawmakers pressed the sponsor on several points. Representative Duncan and Representative Brown asked whether parts of the bill duplicate existing statutes, and whether grants that repair or renovate facilities must be limited to publicly owned facilities (the bill’s language limits certain capital grants to public entities). Other members repeatedly raised concerns about the bill allowing “essential resources” to be provided to individuals — examples discussed included a one-time bag of dog food, fencing and kennels — and whether caps or eligibility rules should be written into statute or left to rulemaking.

Representatives and witnesses said the administration (DFA) would promulgate rules for competitive grants and that the department planned to set priorities, oversight and caps. The sponsor said the program would be competitive and that DFA rules would include cost controls and priority settings; a witness testified that the department anticipated caps could be part of the rules (examples discussed in committee included limits such as a dollar cap per family per year).

Several members explicitly raised a constitutional concern about the state’s anti-donation provision if the bill were to deliver funds directly to private individuals rather than to public entities or nonprofit partners. Representative Brown said he was concerned the bill could “violate the anti-donation clause” if money went to private individuals without careful constraints.

What’s next: Committee members asked the sponsor to work with members to draft clearer caps, eligibility rules and administrative details before the bill moves forward. The committee adopted the committee substitute and proceeded to public comment; no final floor recommendation vote was recorded in this hearing.

Ending: The substitute’s adoption keeps the proposal alive but shifts decision-making on program design to DFA rulemaking and future negotiations. Lawmakers signaled interest in amendments to limit payments to individuals, define eligible uses and ensure compliance with state constitutional limits.