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: |
Tsosie |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
|
SB |
798 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Reynolds-Forte |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Indeterminate See Fiscal Implications |
Recurring |
State
Road Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Responses
Received From
State
Highway and Transportation Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
SB 798 requires the
Significant Issues
SB 798 requires, rather than simply authorizes,
the
Use
of the wording “shall grant an easement” may be construed as imposing a
mandatory duty to issue such permits, exempting only the Navajo Nation from the
current permitting process. This reduces
the Department’s ability to impose limitations on such permits to further the
safety of utility uses on Department right-of-way.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
SB 798 could result in
an increase in costs for the re-construction of highways. Current practice is for the Department to issue
permits for utility uses. SB 798 requires
the granting of an easement. On occasion,
highway re-construction can require the Department to require utility users to
re-locate their utility lines. If the
Department were to issue an easement, as SB 798 requires, extinguishments of an
easement would require compensation since an easement is a compensible interest
in real property. The permits issued by
the Department for utility use are not compensible. Consequently, issuing easements rather the
permits would result in increased costs for the re-construction of highways
having such easements.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SB 798 would remove current discretion of the
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Current law includes statutory language
setting forth the policy of the State Highway and Transportation Department
(Department) toward granting utilities permission to use Department
right-of-way, expressing broadly framed support for such use, providing,
“Public highways are intended principally for public travel and transportation;
but they are also intended for proper utility uses in serving the public, as
authorized pursuant to the laws of this state, and such utility uses are for
the benefit of the public served.
Without making use of public ways utility lines could not reach or
economically service the adjacent public, particularly in urban areas.” NMSA 1978 sec.67-8-15B (1959).
Pursuant to this policy, the Department
has established a system to grant permits to entities which choose to use
Department right-of-way for utility purposes.
Current regulations provide a system for application for such
permits. The Department has issued such
permits to entities of the Navajo Nation government such as the Navajo Tribal
Utility Authority and the Navajo Housing Authority. Therefore, the need for statutory authority
to allow use of Department right-of-way by tribal entities for utility purposes
is not apparent.
SB
798 does not depart from current practice except in its use of the word “shall”
to describe the Department’s obligation to grant a utility use permit. Current practice allows the issuance of a
permit to be at the discretion of the Department to accommodate safety and
compatibility concerns.
PRF/njw