Bernalillo County commissioners back state bill requiring prevailing wages for IRB-funded projects, 3-1

Bernalillo County commissioners voted 3-1 on Feb. 11 to adopt a resolution supporting House Bill 6, which would require projects receiving industrial revenue bond (IRB) tax abatements to pay New Mexico’s prevailing wage on covered public-works construction.

The resolution—introduced by Chair Olivas—was debated after a public comment period in which several construction trades representatives urged county endorsement while a private real-estate developer argued the bill would act like a tax on development.

Why it matters: The resolution signals the county’s support for state legislation that would extend prevailing-wage rules to private projects receiving IRB benefits. Supporters said the change would prevent wage undercutting on projects that receive public tax abatements; opponents said it risks raising construction costs and deterring employers.

Public comment and debate: Speakers in favor included Stephanie Mays of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 611, who said prevailing wage “prevents wage undercutting” and protects skilled labor; Joan Baker of United Association Local 412 and Rhonda Gilliland Lopez of the Mechanical Contractors Association also urged commissioners to back the bill. Leticia Vigil of the New Mexico National Electrical Contractors Association called HB6 “a way to promote economic growth and apprenticeship opportunities.”

A private-sector speaker, Adam Silverman, identified himself as a commercial real-estate developer and said the measure would operate like a tax that increases project costs and could push investment away from New Mexico.

Commissioners debated economic-development tradeoffs and labor protections before calling the question. Commissioner Bentz recorded the lone vote against the resolution during the roll call; the measure passed 3-1.

Outcome and next steps: The board’s action was a formal statement of support for House Bill 6; it does not change local code. The resolution will be transmitted per the board’s process to county staff and, as appropriate, to legislators and partners advocating for the bill.

Votes at a glance: Resolution supporting House Bill 6 — Passed 3–1 (tally only; roll-call names not recorded in the public discussion transcript).

Context and background: Supporters framed HB6 as aligning public subsidy with basic pay standards; opponents framed it as a potential deterrent to investment. Commissioners cited the county’s interest in both attracting economic development and ensuring public investments do not result in low pay that triggers reliance on public assistance.

Ending: The county’s resolution is a statement to state lawmakers; any statutory change would need passage at the state Legislature before taking effect.