Fiscal impact
reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative
Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The
LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the
NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments,
whereas HTML versions may not.
Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR |
Snyder |
DATE TYPED |
|
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT
TITLE |
Clandestine Drug Laboratory Act |
SB |
389 |
||||
|
|
ANALYST |
Gilbert |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY04 |
FY05 |
FY04 |
FY05 |
||
|
|
|
Indeterminate |
Indeterminate |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure
Decreases)
Relates
to: HJM 61 – Methamphetamine Lab Closure Protocol
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
New
Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD)
Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC)
Attorney
General’s Office (AGO)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 389 establishes
the Clandestine Drug Laboratory Act. The
bill requires real property owners of clandestine drug laboratory sites to
retain registered drug laboratory site remediation firms to decontaminate such
properties. Until remediation is
complete, no one may use, enter, occupy, rent or sell contaminated properties. Future buyers or renters must be notified
that such properties were used as clandestine drug laboratory sites.
In addition, SB 389
makes it a crime to violate an order or notice of removal or to knowingly disturb
the posted notice of removal required by this bill. After law enforcement notifies owners regarding
the presence of contamination, by placing a notice of removal on the property
or mailing the same, any violation of the removal process is a fourth degree
felony. Disturbing the notice of removal
is a misdemeanor.
Significant
Issues
SB 389 does not
specify or reference cleanup standards.
Most compounds used in methamphetamine manufacture do not have established
cleanup levels. The City of
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
According to the New
Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD), if this bill increases incarcerations, probations,
or paroles, it could impact the general fund as follows:
For
example, the contract/private prison annual costs of incarcerating an inmate,
based upon Fiscal Year 2003 actual expenditures, is $20,720 per year for
males. The cost per client to house a
female inmate at a privately operated facility is $26,313 per year. Because state owned prisons are essentially
at capacity, any net increase in inmate population will be housed at a contract/private
facility.
The
cost per client in probation and parole for a standard supervision program is
$1,452 per year. The cost per client in
intensive supervision programs is $2,852 per year. The cost per client in department-operated
community corrections programs is $4,371 per year. The cost per client in privately-operated community
corrections programs is $9,151 per year.
The cost per year for male and female residential community corrections
programs is $20,725.
ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPLICATIONS
According to the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC), this bill would result in increased workload from
added judicial time needed to dispose of these types of cases in the manner provided
under the law. There will be a minimal
administrative cost for statewide update, distribution, and documentation of
statutory changes. Any additional fiscal
impact on the judiciary would be proportional to the enforcement of this law
and commenced prosecutions. New laws,
amendments to existing laws, and new hearings have the potential to increase
caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional resources to handle the
increase.
Illegal drug laboratories are a growing problem
in
TECHNICAL
ISSUES
New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED) stated that SB389 should be amended to
ensure that the NMED determines whether or not sites have been sufficiently remediated.
According
to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the criminal provisions of this bill do
not appear to create double jeopardy problems inasmuch as they do no purport to
take the property of any person who may be otherwise criminally prosecuted in
connection with the manufacture of controlled substances.
The AGO also noted that pursuant to a recent
Court of Appeals decision, if any statutory sections amended by this bill are
also amended by another bill or bills, the bill last signed by the Governor may
be the only one that will be considered a valid law.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
outlined the following concerns:
As written, the bill
only requires remediation of real property, mobile homes, or recreational
vehicles. If a drug lab discovered in a
car or truck, this bill would not apply and remediation would be not be
required. Should the language of the
bill be broader or should motor vehicles be added to the bill?
When a mobile home or
recreational vehicle requires remediation, the landlord notifies the lien
holder and the owner of record of the property that the unit is to be removed
within 30 days. If the unit is not
removed in 30 days, the landlord may remove or demolish the unit and dispose of
it as junk. There is no clean-up requirement
in this situation. It appears that
hazardous waste could be disposed of without remediation. Should remediation be required in these
situations before mobile homes or recreational vehicles can be disposed as
junk?
RLG/dm