Senate Bill 145, proposing a $500 million appropriation to the New Mexico Housing Trust Fund, was amended in committee and advanced by a 6–3 due‑pass vote.

The amendment increased a local government set‑aside and changed matching rules. Under the committee substitute, 30 percent of the appropriation (split as 15 percent for non‑rural/metro local governments and 15 percent for rural local governments) would be set aside; the amendment removed a statutory 3:1 local match requirement and added language to require applicants to demonstrate the ability to expedite zoning processes that support affordable housing.

Why it matters: The bill, if enacted and funded at the requested level, would substantially expand the state’s housing production resources. Supporters said it would catalyze construction of rental and ownership units, down‑payment assistance, and rehab. Critics warned the set‑aside and removal of a formal match could reduce private leverage and discourage investment if not designed carefully.

Testimony and changes
Housing New Mexico executive director Isidoro “Izzy” Hernandez briefed the committee on need and capacity. He summarized the agency’s recent awards and leverage ratio (the agency said it currently averages roughly 16:1 leverage on housing trust fund investments), and told members the agency had identified uses across rental production, single‑family development, down‑payment assistance and rehabilitation.

The amendment (Senate amendment 230714.1 as presented in committee) replaced an initial 10 percent local set‑aside with the 30 percent split and removed the statutory 3:1 match so smaller rural governments could access funds.

Committee debate and votes
Several speakers urged the committee to fund the bill at scale; others asked for protections to ensure leverage and to direct funds to in‑state developers and for infrastructure costs (impact fees). Committee members pressed Housing New Mexico on administrative costs (the agency said the housing trust fund allows up to 5 percent for administration and that historically the agency charged 2.1 percent) and on the agency’s capacity to deploy large sums quickly. The committee approved the amendment and later voted 6–3 to give the amended bill a due‑pass recommendation.

Outcome: The bill, as amended (set‑aside and match removal), advances to the Senate for further action.