Transcript Highlights:

• The industry does support apprentice programs. We are... ...in New Mexico.
• The industry does support apprentice programs.
• So, this DOT—I didn't hear anything from DOT whether they support this or not.
• And District 4 is also home to 20 municipalities, and we support—these are supported by 16 maintenance
• So that would be under our support staff.

Summary: The committee heard a District 5 New Mexico Department of Transportation presentation from Rhonda Lopez, who reviewed the district’s FY26 budget, staffing vacancies, and the status of special appropriations from 2020 through 2025. She described numerous completed and ongoing projects across the district, including roadway overlays, bridge work, intersection improvements, ADA upgrades, and maintenance projects, and also summarized STIP, TPF, LGRF, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64 in Hogback, the 5% local match for TPF projects, and the status of the New Mexico 371/U.S. 36 intersection funding agreement with the Navajo Nation; DOT said the match is secured or waived where applicable and that the Navajo agreement is nearly finalized. The committee then heard House Bill 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs for certain public works contracts, including highway-related work, while creating an exception where no approved apprenticeship program exists for a trade classification. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen workforce development and support apprenticeship training. Contractors and asphalt industry representatives opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training contributions. A motion to table failed on a tie, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie, leaving the bill in committee. Next, the committee heard House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, dedicate additional revenue sources including a portion of electricity GRT and motor vehicle excise tax, and begin annual distributions for federal matching funds in 2029. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help address a multi-billion-dollar road funding gap, improve maintenance, and provide a stable source for matching federal dollars. Some members raised concerns about the electricity tax component, its effect on utility bills, and overlap with recently enacted transportation financing measures; others supported the concept but questioned timing and funding priorities. A motion on the bill resulted in a tie and failed, leaving the bill in committee. The meeting concluded with a District 4 NMDOT legislative presentation. The district outlined its geography, budget, staffing vacancy rate, completed special appropriations, active construction and maintenance projects, wildfire-related recovery work, local government funding allocations, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of local funding and the impact of aging equipment and weather on maintenance costs. The presentation ended without any formal action on District 4 items, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The industry does support apprentice programs.
• And I do not support this bill.
• We support this bill. We think this goes a lot towards the sustainability.
• So, this DOT—I didn't hear anything from DOT whether they support this or not.
• So that would be under our support staff.

Summary: The committee first received a detailed New Mexico DOT District 5 presentation from Rhonda Lopez. She reviewed District 5’s budget, staffing vacancies, completed and ongoing special appropriations from 2020 through 2025, active construction projects, maintenance work, STIP and local government funding, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64, the status of the 5% local match for Transportation Project Fund projects, and the New Mexico 371/Navajo Route 36 intersection; DOT said the match agreements were in place or waived where eligible, and that the Navajo Nation funding agreement was nearly finalized. The chair then moved the agenda to bills before finishing the remaining presentations later. House Bill 270, dealing with contributions to apprenticeship and training programs on public works projects, was presented by Rep. Borrego as a follow-up to the 2024 workforce development and apprenticeship trust fund law. The bill would remove an exclusion for street, highway, bridge, road, utility, and maintenance contracts and require contributions unless a trade classification has no approved apprenticeship program. Associated Contractors and the Asphalt Pavement Association opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training programs. Members raised concerns about notice, added costs, and whether contractors with existing programs would be paying twice. A motion to table failed on a tie vote, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie vote, leaving the bill in committee and available for reconsideration. Ranking Member Brown then presented House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, with a planned distribution beginning in 2029, including a 5% use for federal matching funds. The bill would also dedicate a portion of the gross receipts tax on electricity and redirect part of the motor vehicle excise tax to grow the fund. Associated Contractors and the Asphalt Pavement Association supported the concept, saying it would help sustain DOT and address the state’s road maintenance gap. Members questioned the electricity tax component, its effect on ratepayers and data centers, the interaction with SB 2 and bond financing, and how projects would be prioritized. A motion to pass failed on a tie vote, and the ranking member suggested the bill could be reconsidered with an amendment removing the electricity portion. The committee then heard a District 4 DOT presentation from assistant district engineer Cruz Sudoste, covering the district’s geography, budget, staffing, completed and active projects, STIP and local government programs, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of transportation project funds and the impact of aging equipment on repair costs. The presentation concluded without any vote or other action on the district report.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, again, a lot of different behavioral health initiatives and family support initiatives with **Senate
• What we're seeing in many other states is that they are providing services and supports to these young
• But these high-risk kids are where we really need to target support and supervision.
• There are very limited supports and opportunities for young people when they are coming back into the
• Opportunities that schools provide around behavioral health supports. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> your support. your support.
• Thus, I cannot support it. costs. Thus, I cannot support it.
• </c> support of H.955. support of H.955.
• </c> support 955 today. support 955 today.
• </c> support it, too. support it, too.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your support.
• I urge you to support this amendment.
• Speaker, members, and thank you all for your support.
• I am so proud to support HB 143. They are a real issue.
• I fully support HB1025.

Bills: HJR4 , HJR6 , HB195 , HB 13 , HB143 , HB135

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll be supportive of the bill. Otherwise, I can't support this bill personally.
• You're like an important person to support this, but I'm only one person.
• You're like an important person to support this, but I'm only one person.
• Believe me, North Conway is dealing with this right now when it comes to vacation rentals.
• </c> this way the battle over vacation rental this way the battle over vacation rental is<04:03:28.279

Summary: The discussion focused on a cannabis legalization/regulation bill and whether it should be retained for further study or moved forward. Members debated the fiscal impact, with one side emphasizing that the bill would cost about $7.1 million in the first two years before generating revenue, while supporters argued the House should make a statement in favor of legalization despite likely opposition from the Senate and governor. There was also disagreement over strategy: some said retaining the bill until closer to the next election would give the issue more visibility, while others said delaying would only avoid sending a bill the Senate was unlikely to take up anyway. A major point of contention was whether cannabis should be regulated by a new cannabis commission or placed under the Liquor Commission. Supporters of the Liquor Commission argued it already has enforcement infrastructure, especially for age restrictions, and could handle cannabis more efficiently without creating a new bureaucracy. Opponents said cannabis is a different industry that would require specialized expertise, and they objected to expanding the Liquor Commission, which they described as unpopular and costly. The committee also discussed past versions of the bill, including concerns about limited licenses and the perception that the earlier approach favored large businesses. Members reviewed specific provisions such as licensing fees, THC limits, and cultivation categories. One member noted a $10,000 fee for retail cannabis stores and cannabis product manufacturers authorized to perform extractions, while a smaller tier-one cultivator fee was described as a lower-cost option for small growers. There was also discussion of whether the bill would allow sales through general retail outlets or only dedicated cannabis stores, and whether plants and seeds were covered. No final vote or action was clearly recorded in the excerpt, but the main procedural question was whether to retain the bill for more work or advance it as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Coalition Denver in support. Coalition Denver in support.
• </c> Office uh in support in person. Office uh in support in person.
• Earth in support, and from six additional individuals in support.
• </c> support in person. support in person. Thank<02:17:09.599><c> you.
• . support. support.

Summary: The joint hearing covered three measures. SB 1602 would appropriate funds to DLNR for monitoring wells for the Koho aquifer system; DLNR and HHFDC supported it, and written testimony from several organizations and individuals was also in support. Members asked whether monitoring wells are a statewide function rather than a county function, and staff confirmed they are done statewide. The second bill was an administration measure clarifying that criminal water pollution enforcement remains with the Department of Health rather than DLNR. The Attorney General’s office said it was a cleanup clarification and that DOH has stronger enforcement powers and better testing capability; DOH and DLNR supported it, and there was no opposition noted. The final and most heavily debated measure was SB 1074 on environmental impact statements. The bill would let previously authorized or permitted commercial activities continue for up to one year while an agency determines whether environmental review applies after a challenge, and would allow permit renewals during that review. DLNR said it stood on written comments and suggested aligning the bill with similar House language. Supporters, including several ocean tourism and Maui business representatives, argued the bill would provide certainty and keep families and small operators working while environmental review is completed, especially in the wake of the Lahaina fires and ongoing business losses. Some supporters said the measure should be narrowed with a sunset or limited to recently renewed permits. Opponents, including the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, and other environmental advocates, argued the bill was overly broad and could weaken HEPA/NEPA-style environmental review, especially for fisheries and other commercial activities. They said the bill could be used as a “Trojan horse” to avoid review and that DLNR could resolve the underlying disputes more quickly through settlement or existing exemption processes. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We support the intent of this measure.
• ><c> Agri</c> this measure uh we 100% support Agri this measure uh we 100% support Agri tourism<00:20
• It doesn't support Hawaiʻi jobs or Hawaiʻi agriculture. We stand in strong support of this bill.
• It doesn't support Hawaiʻi jobs or Hawaiʻi agriculture. We stand in strong support of this bill.
• to support local to support local economics<01:53:18.480><c> and</c><01:53:18.800><c> tariffs</c><01:

Summary: The joint House Agriculture and Food Systems and Tourism hearing focused on HB 189 and HB 966, both dealing with agricultural tourism. HB 189 would require counties to adopt ordinances governing review and permitting of agricultural tourism as secondary uses on working farms, require the principal agricultural use to pre-exist any tourism-related permit, and limit ag tourism to land where productive agriculture is occurring. HB 966 would create statewide uniform standards for agricultural tourism, require county registration of activities, require ag tourism to coexist with agricultural activity on a farming operation, and end the tourism use when agricultural activity ceases. Testimony on HB 189 was mixed. The Department of Agriculture and Kualoa Ranch opposed the bill, arguing that the proposed restrictions and income-based limits could burden bona fide farms and ranches, reduce flexibility for counties, and harm food production, jobs, and diversification efforts. Kualoa Ranch said ag tourism supports its food sales and community market and warned the bill could cost more than 350 jobs. The Hawaiʻi Cattlemen’s Council also opposed the measure for similar reasons. The Hawaiʻi Farmers Union supported the bill with suggested amendments, including clearer language around agricultural dedication. The Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau supported the intent of the bill but urged caution, saying ag tourism should remain tied to actual agricultural production and that counties need flexibility to address abuses without imposing overly rigid standards. Members discussed how to define a bona fide agricultural operation and whether property tax agricultural dedication could serve as a clearer qualifier. They also raised concerns about how counties would enforce revenue thresholds or separate accounting for tourism and farm income, and whether state law should better target clearly non-agricultural uses such as gondolas or other abusive developments. The Department of Agriculture and Farm Bureau said counties already have authority to regulate ag tourism through ordinances, but that any new standards should avoid unintended burdens on true farmers and ranchers. HB 966 was then introduced, and initial testimony again reflected support for the bill’s intent from some agricultural groups and opposition or caution from others. Kualoa Ranch said ag tourism can help educate visitors and support agriculture, the Hawaiʻi Farmers Union supported county flexibility, and the Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau reiterated concerns about the bill’s income comparison provisions and the need to distinguish legitimate agricultural tourism from misuse. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• meals, and homemaker services. support and 9255 that's our social support and 9255 that's our social
• </c><00:55:30.240><c> waiver</c> and there's also a home support waiver and there's also a home support
• </c><00:55:38.839><c> waiver</c> looks like the home support waiver looks like the home support waiver
• </c><01:05:41.319><c> or</c> we we're providing virtual support or we we're providing virtual support
• </c><01:14:54.760><c> to</c> and provide really uh great support to and provide really uh great support

Summary: The Division of Long-Term Supports and Services presented its budget and program overview as part of the Department of Health and Human Services operating budget review. Leadership described the division’s three bureaus—Aging and Adult Services, Developmental Services, and Family-Centered Services—and explained that the division provides guidance, technical assistance, quality monitoring, and contracted provider oversight across the lifespan. Members also discussed staffing, with reported vacancy rates of 4% in Aging and Adult Services, 15% in Developmental Services, and 6% in Family-Centered Services; the division said the higher BDS vacancy rate is partly due to the small number of authorized positions. The governor’s budget had left eight positions unfunded in the division, including three in Aging and Adult Services and five in BDS. A major topic was the division’s roadmap initiatives, especially building a system of care for healthy aging and strengthening developmental disabilities systems through a new reimbursement rate structure. The division said it contracted with an actuary to study DD service costs and found rates had not been reviewed since 2017 and were significantly below actual costs and other states’ rates, contributing to provider shortages even when services are authorized. Members asked about the impact on service delivery and whether rates would need to rise overall; the division said its strategy is to focus on lower-cost services that help people remain in the community. The division also reported waiver enrollment figures, including about 4,161 people on the Choices for Independence waiver, 3,688 average nursing facility residents, 5,061 people on the DD waiver, 228 on the acquired brain disorder waiver, and 488 children on the in-home support waiver, while noting there is no funding waitlist but provider availability remains a constraint. The division highlighted IT modernization as a major accomplishment, especially moving Adult Protective Services and Developmental Services into the New Heights system. Officials said these changes improve case-note access, data retrieval, service authorization tracking, and transparency for providers, and they asked for future oversight discussion focused on IT leverage. Members noted that New Heights maintenance is budgeted in the Office of the Commissioner under class 27 and suggested better transparency on system costs and benefits. The division also reported that it closed out a long-running CMS corrective action plan for BDS on July 1, 2023, and said it is now focused on strengthening the system rather than compliance alone. Other discussion covered the Aging and Adult Services bureau’s name change from Elderly and Adult Services to Adult and Aging Services, intended to avoid negative connotations and better reflect preventative services. The bureau described Adult Protective Services trends involving scams, financial exploitation, self-neglect, and isolation, and explained that it administers the CFI waiver, determines medical eligibility for nursing facility level of care, and braids funding from Medicaid, state funds, Older Americans Act money, Social Service Block Grants, and other grants. Members asked about waiver growth targets and federal consequences if enrollment remains below projections; the division said it would explain the shortfall in a future waiver amendment and did not anticipate a federal penalty. The meeting ended without any votes or formal actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and u uh I urge your support. and u uh I urge your support.
• Um, so wanted to share strong support for looking into programs like this that can really help support
• Um, so wanted to share strong support for looking into programs like this that can really help support
• Um, so wanted to share strong support for looking into programs like this that can really help support
• Um, so wanted to share strong support for looking into programs like this that can really help support

Committee: Senate Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development

Transcript Highlights:

• Less than 100 were in support.
• Less than 100 were in support.
• Less than 100 were in support.
• Less than 100 were in support.
• support this bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> payments to families, supported payments to families, supported healthcare<00:04:51.360><c> providers
• </c><00:09:41.120><c> for</c> spending for testing, support for spending for testing, support for atrisisk
• and other provider supports.
• It funded a combination of supports.
• </c><00:42:36.720><c> both</c> investment came in to support both investment came in to support both

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• . support. support.
• </c> I am here asking you to support SF 1201. I am here asking you to support SF 1201.
• </c> I encourage you to support this bill. I encourage you to support this bill.
• </c> ask for your support. ask for your support.
• We worked support the bill.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Springs supporting um this amendment. Springs supporting um this amendment.
• I certainly support it.
• </c> support our municipal judges. support our municipal judges.
• </c> support on L030. support on L030. Thank<02:01:59.040><c> you.
• It supports accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Supporting everything that Director Boss just said, the state is embracing and supporting home- and community-based
• CWDA so far has expressed support, and we anticipate additional support letters.
• to support individuals who are exiting homelessness.
• And third, who is the no wrong door system designed to support?
• IHSS is an integral support for us and those for whom we care.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh there's a lot support on this bill.
• ><c> airline</c> taxpayers help support the airline taxpayers help support the airline industry<00:43
• Thanks so much. asking for your your support. Workers asking for your your support.
• </c><00:59:54.799><c> the</c> silent when it came to supporting the silent when it came to supporting
• </c> top to the very bottom that help support top to the very bottom that help support the<01:37:26.320

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• support this tax fairness.
• They all deserve our support.
• Speaker, again, I do not intend to support this budget. Thank you. I intend to support this budget.
• We support equality. We support uplifting individuals.
• Where's the supporting schedules?

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate it, and I'm going to be supporting the motion.
• I mean, between the motels, the food, lodging, car rentals, etc., same thing.
• So thank you, Representative Monks, and I'll be supporting the motion.
• So thank you, Representative Monks, and I'll be supporting the motion.
• So I will be absolutely supporting this resolution.

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• So, with that, support of this bill.
• </c> sincerely thank you for your support sincerely thank you for your support during<00:38:10.800><c
• They have received some support.
• I'm here to support House File 1259.
• </c> a letter of recommendation and support a letter of recommendation and support for<01:07:10.240><

Bills: HF2411 , HF2471 , HF1440 , HF1393 , HF1631 , HF1259 , HF280 , HF1281 , HF1459

Committee: House Legacy Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm excited for you to hear support.
• </c> support around 220 jobs. support around 220 jobs.
• /c> and different programming to support the and different programming to support the uh<00:18:34.880
• </c> get support from the city of Lexington. get support from the city of Lexington.
• So, before we can remove the car rental facility, we have to build a new car rental facility.

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Economic Development and Tourism met to hear presentations on a proposed downtown Lexington Arts Center. Visit Lex opened by framing the projects as regional economic development efforts that could support tourism, quality of life, and workforce attraction and retention. NextStage Development Corp. and ATG Entertainment then described a proposed $120 million project featuring a 2,500-seat performing arts center and a 20,000-square-foot visual arts gallery, with plans for up to 180 events a year, over 300,000 annual visitors, and an opening target of 2029. The presenters said the project would be funded through a $30 million state request, $30 million from ATG Entertainment, and $60 million raised by the nonprofit through philanthropy and other financing sources. They cited a feasibility study by Sound Diplomacy and compared the proposal to the Durham Performing Arts Center, arguing that similar venues have driven downtown revitalization, tourism, and economic activity in other cities. They also said the venue would include community access, school partnerships, subsidized tickets, and revenue returned to the nonprofit for grants and arts programming. Members asked about the total cost, the funding mix, whether the city of Lexington would contribute, and the building’s design. The presenters said they are in contact with city officials and are seeking city support, but have not yet hired an architect or begun conceptual design. They said the design process will involve community input and should fit Lexington’s historic downtown character. Representative Whitten asked whether the project would compete with Louisville; the presenters responded that their market analysis suggests the venue would serve audiences from Lexington, eastern Kentucky, and surrounding areas who are unlikely to travel to Louisville or Cincinnati, making the project complementary rather than competitive.