Committee advances bill requiring larger New Mexico cities and counties to publish housing-permitting data

House Bill 110, a measure to standardize public reporting of residential land-use applications and permit timelines in larger New Mexico jurisdictions, was advanced by the House Rural Development, Land Grants and Cultural Affairs Committee on a 4-3 committee vote Wednesday.

Sponsor Representative (sponsor) told the committee the substitute clarifies key definitions and narrows reporting requirements so local governments report only on ‘‘residential land use applications’’ and the elapsed days only for applications approved or denied in the quarter. The substitute also limits permit reporting to new building permits and adds a requirement to include the number of planning and land-use staff at the time of the report, a change the sponsor said was requested by Secretary Nayer.

The bill’s backers said the requirement will help policymakers identify bottlenecks and target resources. Veronica Toledo, director of policy and advocacy at HomeWise, testified: "This very easy reporting requirement will give local governments and policymakers the tools to identify and address challenges and bottlenecks in housing approval and permitting processes." Developers and housing advocates, including the New Mexico Association of Realtors and the New Mexico Home Builders Association, described wide variation in permitting timelines across jurisdictions and urged support.

Opponents, led by the New Mexico Municipal League, urged caution. Jacob Robery, a Municipal League policy analyst, told the committee the bill "imposes mandated reporting that removes local decision making" and called it "a textbook example of preemption legislation," adding the proposal would amount to an unfunded reporting requirement for some smaller jurisdictions. Several mayors and municipal staff said many cities already track similar data voluntarily and warned the bill could divert staff time from permitting work.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on details including whether the bill imposes penalties for noncompliance (the substitute contains no fines or monetary penalties) and who would prepare and publish the reports. The sponsor and witnesses said planning or land-use departments would usually compile the data and publish it on local websites; the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) would also collect and aggregate published data.

To reflect members’ concerns, Vice Chair Sanchez and the sponsor said they will carry amendments to the next committee: raising the municipal population threshold from 30,000 to 40,000 and adding a five-year sunset for the reporting requirement. With those commitments, the committee moved to advance the committee substitute.

A roll-call produced a 4-3 recommendation to advance the substitute. The clerk announced the final tally as "4 in the affirmative and 3 in the negative." The committee did not record financial penalties for noncompliance in the substitute; sponsor materials state the goal is transparency and problem identification rather than enforcement.

The committee’s action sends the bill with a do-pass recommendation (committee substitute) to the next legislative stage for further consideration and the sponsor said she will present the agreed amendments in that next hearing.