[1]NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the
standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative
Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information
in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Kidd |
DATE TYPED: |
01/28/01 |
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Litter Control & Beautification Fund |
SB |
225 |
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Gilbert |
|||||
REVENUE
|
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years
Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
*$0.1 |
*$0.1 |
*$0.1 |
Recurring |
Litter
Control and Beautification Fund |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
*
See Narrative
Duplicates: HB206 Relates to: HB216 & HB217
LFC Files
Response Received From
State Highway and Transportation Department
(SHTD)
No Response Received
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 225 proposes a technical
reorganization of the statute relating to the $0.50 beautification fee and the
litter control and beautification fund, and specifies that the $0.50 fee be
imposed on each motor vehicle registration “for each year covered by the
registration”. A technical correction
is also made to the distribution of motor vehicle revenue under Section 66-6-23
NMSA 1978 to remedy a shortcoming in Laws 2001, Chapter 20.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The SHTD has no
reliable information regarding the number of 2-year vehicle registration option
transactions on which a “doubled” beautification fee would be applied. However, the beautification fee
revenue for FY00 was approximately $1.2 million, but dropped to $829.0 in
FY01. The majority of that revenue loss
was likely related to the loss of fees imposed in connection with the heavy vehicle
annual filing fee (cab card fee). Some
amount, however, is probably attributable to vehicles registered under the
2-year option during FY00.
The SHTD reports that
no substantial revenue gain is expected to result from this bill.
This bill contains an
emergency clause, thus a small revenue gain may be realized in FY02 as a result.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
With
implementation of the 2-year vehicle registration option, the statute is
currently unclear as to whether the beautification fee should be $0.50 or $1.00
for a 2-year vehicle registration. This bill seeks to address that issue.
The
SHTD notes the following technical concerns:
Section
4, Subsection A, Paragraph (3)(a) adds a specification to Section 66-6-23 NMSA
1978 that “… the fees collected pursuant to Section 66-7-413.4 NMSA 1978”
be distributed to the state road fund.
The SHTD requests a reference to Section 66-7-413 be added here: “…
the fees collected pursuant to Section 66-7-413 and Section
66-7-413.4 NMSA 1978”.
Section
66-7-413.4 NMSA 1978 allows an excessive weight permit for liquid hauling tank
vehicles, and that 2001 legislation also repealed Section 66-7-413.3. However, Section 66-7-413.3 (repealed) used
to contain a vague provision that “Any fees collected pursuant to special
permits authorizing over-size or over-weight transportation … be transferred to
the state road fund.” It is unclear
whether there now exists any specific statutory distribution of the fees collected
under Section 66-7-413 NMSA 1978 (over-size and over-weight permits), and this
should be made clear.
[1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode. Do not add or delete spaces.