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 for
other purposes.
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 in
SPONSOR: |
Foley |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
959/aHTRC |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Delinquent Property Tax Collection |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Gilbert |
|||||
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
$162.5 |
$325.0 |
Recurring |
|
|
($162.5) |
($325.0) |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Relates to SB 497
LFC Files
Response Received
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of HTRC Amendment
The
House Taxation and Revenue Committee amendment to House Bill 959 limits
counties with the option to collect delinquent taxes and with authority to contract
for delinquent tax collection to class A counties with populations of 350,000
or more according to the latest federal decennial census.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 959 allows Class A counties
(Bernalillo,
Significant
Issues
HB 959 sets no limit on the fees Class A
counties may impose for collecting delinquent property taxes. Currently, TRD
imposes a $25 fee for these services.
County treasurers are elected officials
responsible for collecting property taxes. However, HB 959 would grant county
commissioners the authority to decide who will perform collections (the county
treasurer or private attorneys).
County officials have authority to collect
property taxes via contract with private attorneys, but, if they fail to
accomplish collection after two years, the TRD is given authority to collect.
The proposed measure would thus effectively eliminate limits on time allowed to
counties to collect delinquent accounts – and on the time required for other
property tax recipients to receive distributions.
The motivation of individuals collecting
delinquent taxes under HB 959 may be very different than under the current
system. Sales of delinquent properties
are currently the last resort to collect taxes.
TRD generally prefers that property owners pay taxes and avoid
foreclosure and sale. Individuals working in Class A counties under the
proposed system are likely to be motivated by potential profit.
Approximately $17
billion, or 60% of the state’s assessed property value is in Class A counties.
Collections of penalty, interest and other costs associated with delinquent
properties averaged approximately $1.3 million in the past two fiscal years, 50%
of which was in Class A counties. If all Class A counties opted for 100%
collection activities, the state would lose approximately $650.0 in annual
general fund revenues.
About 57,000 properties were on delinquency
lists during the past three years. TRD collects on, via sale or field
collections, about 6,500 of these accounts. The Department imposes a flat fee
of $25 in collection costs, and typically charges property owners a total of
$160.0, of which $40.0 is paid by property owners in Class A counties. The
number of people employed in the TRD Delinquent Property Tax Bureau would
probably decrease by a proportionate amount. The Bureau currently employs 17
full-time employees.
According to TRD, HB
959 may violate equal protection provisions of the
HB 959 does not
require counties to assume responsibility for mistakes in collecting taxes and
conducting property sales. The TRD Legal Services Bureau may be responsible for
intervening in these types of cases.
SB 497 is similar to
HB 959, except that it does not limit private attorney compensation for
property tax collection to 30% of the total delinquent taxes, interest, and
penalties.
RLG/yr/njw