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 a vailable 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 Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Irwin

DATE TYPED 02/07/05 HB 456

SHORT TITLE Public Record Reproduction Cost Recovery

SB

ANALYST Ford

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

Indeterminate

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Corrections Department (CD)

Public Education Department (PED)

State Commission on Public Records (SCPR)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 456 amends the Inspection of Public Records Act to limit the copying fees a custo-

dian of public records may charge to the actual cost of reproduction.

Significant Issues

Current law allows the custodian of a public record to charge “reasonable fees for copying the

public records, unless a different fee is otherwise prescribed by law.” (Section 14-2-9 NMSA

1978). This bill would restrict those costs by instead providing that “in no event” shall the fees

exceed the actual cost of reproduction.

The State Commission on Public Records, the PED, the Corrections Department and the AOC all

note that the actual cost of reproduction is not defined. Does this include staff time to make the

House Bill 456-- Page 2

copies. Toner for the copy machine or printer. A portion of the copy machine lease. The Cor-

rections Department notes that it would take administrative efforts on the part of agencies to de-

termine the actual cost of reproduction, and without guidelines from the legislation, that

determination could vary widely from one agency to another.

In addition, the language would seem to override other sections of current law that specifically

set fees. For example, Section 35-6-1 NMSA 1978 requires magistrate courts to charge $0.50

per page for photocopies and $1.00 per page for computer printouts. Section 14-3-19 NMSA

1978 allows the State Commission on Public Records to charge cost plus 5% for its services.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The bill will result in indeterminate costs to the State Commission on Public Records to promul-

gate a new fee schedule. The bill may also result in indeterminate costs to public entities to de-

termine “actual” cost of reproduction. The bill may result in a loss of fee revenue to various

public entities, including the State Commission on Public Records, which indicates that it may

require additional general fund money if fees are lowered.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

House Bill 456 is unclear as to the definition of “actual cost to the public body of reproduction.”

In addition, it is unclear whether the intent of the bill is to override other sections of law that spe-

cifically establish copying fees or whether it is intended only to limit the definition of “reason-

able fees.”

EF/njw