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 Miera

DATE TYPED 02/23/2005 HB 1077/aHTC/a/HAFC

SHORT TITLE Safe Routes To School Program Requirements

SB

ANALYST Moser

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HAFC Amendment

The amendment by HAFC to House Bill 1077 removes the appropriation of $1,000.0. The

amendment additionally makes technical changes modifying references to counties and munici-

palities to be metropolitan planning and rural planning organizations.

Synopsis of HTC Amendment

The amendment to House Bill 1077 follows the proposed changes recommended by the NMDOT

as outlined in the Technical Issues below and adds bikeways to the safe routes that may be

funded by the appropriation.

Synopsis of Original Bill

House Bill 1077 appropriates $1,000,000 dollars from the general fund to the department of

transportation for the purpose of funding the program in the state, counties, and municipalities.

The bill amends Section 66-7-513 NMSA (1978) to create a mandatory safe routes to school

program for the purpose of increasing and making safer a student’s ability to walk or ride a bicy-

cle to school.

House Bill 1077/HTC/aHAFC -- Page 2

Significant Issues

This bill amends an unfunded legislative proposal of 2004 with changes marked in Section 1 and

the addition of Section 2 (Appropriation) and Section 3 (Emergency). The significant changes in

section 1 are: mandatory language, assistance to be provided by the state is specified as funding,

and the state, counties, and municipalities may apply for funding.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

NMDOT’s current activities that have been characterized as part of a Safe Routes to School Pro-

gram consist of (1) focused engineering safety grants that are part of the Highway Safety Im-

provement Program, (2) ongoing pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented improvements by the Districts,

and (3) support to local agencies through pedestrian safety grants administered by the NMDOT

Traffic Safety Bureau. Each has its own source of funding independent of any comprehensive

Safe Routes to School Program.

NMDOT feels that the funding proposed through this legislation could help to establish a bona-

fide Safe Routes to School Program with organizational elements necessary for a comprehensive

approach beyond the improvement of selected bicycle-pedestrian facilities. These include pro-

motion, program development / technical assistance to local governments, support of regional or

statewide approaches, and evaluation, among others.

Program funding for promotion and educational campaigns as well as engineering safety projects

is a strong point of the bill.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $1,000,000 contained in this bill is a noon-recurring expense to the general

fund for FY05. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY05 shall

revert to the general fund.

NMDOT currently has no money budgeted to these type programs. Any safe routes to school

type projects submitted to the NMDOT compete against all other engineering safety projects for

federal funding. This appropriation would enable the NMDOT to open RFPs specifically for

these type projects.

Many initiatives that could be funded through a comprehensive Safe Routes to School program

may be seen as outside of the NMDOT’s normal operational purview. Usage of general fund as

the source of funds can justify NMDOT’s expenditure to support improvements on non-state

roads, for example.

On the other hand, the funding would exist for one year only. Projects could get started but not

carried on beyond the initial year.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The NMDOT indicates that a fully-funded comprehensive program may have FTE implications

to the department.

House Bill 1077/HTC/aHAFC -- Page 3

TECHNICAL ISSUES

By including the term “state” in the list of entities that the state would administer funds to, it ap-

pears that state agencies and NMDOT Districts could apply to the NMDOT for funding.

The NMDOT recommends that Section 1, paragraph B, number 1 be amended to include after

“(a) installing sidewalks” item (b) as follows:

(b) creating bikeways

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

The NMDOT states that the program will continue as an unfunded, scattered, and piecemeal ap-

proach and that suggesting that we are OK without specific funding to facilitate the creation of

safer routes to school is counter-productive.

EM/lg:yr:rs