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 Gutierrez

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1/24/06

1/30/06 HB 227

SHORT TITLE Animal Sheltering Services Act

SB

ANALYST McSherry

House Bill 227 is a Companion to Senate Bill 122.

ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)

FY06

FY07

FY08 3 Year

Total Cost

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

Total

$100.0 $250.0 $350.0 Recurring General

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine (NMBOVM)

Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 227 proposes to create the “Animal Sheltering Services Act”

The proposed Act would:

•

Establish licensing procedures for euthanasia providers and euthanasia agencies;

•

Create certification procedures for euthanasia instructors;

•

Create a nine-member Animal Sheltering Services Board administratively at-

tached to the Regulations and Licensing Department

•

Require the department to employ three employees including a veterinarian to op-

erate daily board operations.

•

Provide for board powers, duties, and penalties for violations of the act,

•

Create an animal sheltering services fund.

The bill proposes that the board would promote safe and humane conditions for animals in ani-

mal shelters;

House Bill 227 – Page

2

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There is not an appropriation contained in this bill, however the bill does create a fund. The ex-

ecutive “special appropriations” recommendation includes a $100,000 general fund appropriation

contingent upon the enactment of this bill.

According to RLD, the proposed board could be partially staffed a $100,000 appropriation, how-

ever RLD further asserts that in order to make the Board fully operational in subsequent years, a

$250,000 appropriation should be considered for the Board. $250 thousand would fund a board

administrator, compliance officer and veterinarian.

The costs required to help shelters “defray the cost of implementing the board’s initiatives,”

permitted as a use of board funds, could be extremely high. This level of permitted us would de-

pending upon the initiatives adopted by the board and the current status of the state’s shelters.

The Animal Sheltering Services Board would not be self-sufficient but would rather require gen-

eral fund appropriations in order to function. This situation would be unlike other boards with

administrative attachment to the Regulations and Licensing Department, all of which are self-

sufficient.

The bill allows the Board to attempt to collect funding through private sources such as gifts,

grants, donations and bequests.

The bill authorizes the board to collect up to $500 dollars in administrative penalty for acts

which violate the proposed animal sheltering services act.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The proposed act REQUIRES the Regulation and Licensing Department to employ at a mini-

mum, three employees, including a veterinarian to carry out the daily operations of the board.

The $100 thousand proposed as a special appropriation in the executive recommendation would

not be sufficient to employ the three staff proposed by the department (administrator, veterinar-

ian, compliance officer).

RLD is not required to employ staff for any other board to which it has administrative attach-

ment. This act would place the Department in violation of the act whenever a vacancy in staff

for the board occurs.

The proposed act would allow funds collected by the board to be used to help shelters “defray

the cost of implementing the board’s initiatives.”

According to NMBOVM, the

proposed animal sheltering act would provide needed oversight of

the state’s shelters and shelters under state/municipal contract. The Board asserts that there is

disparity in sheltering facilities statewide. The Board believes this bill will allow for better stan-

dards and accountability for providing euthanasia at the shelters.

The proposed board would not generate its own operating funds through licensing fees as do all

other professional boards and commissions, both independent and administratively attached to

the Regulation and Licensing Department.

House Bill 227 – Page

3

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

The proposed board could potentially lead to safer shelters for animals and a more regulated

shelter system in New Mexico.

The adoption of certification and licensing for euthanasia providers could result in shelter opera-

tions becoming more costly and in local government difficultly to maintain funding of opera-

tions.

The creation of an animal sheltering services board in the boards and commissions program of

the Regulation and Licensing Department would set a precedent for non-self sufficient profes-

sional licensing and certifications.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The Animal Sheltering Services Board would be administratively attached to, and operate under

the Regulation and Licensing Department. The Department currently provides administrative

services for 29 boards and commissions. All other boards and commissions are self-sustaining

and are funded with licensing and certification fees from their respective professions.

The Board would be charged overhead costs through the Boards and Commissions division of

RLD for administrative support such as human resources services, all technology, fiscal opera-

tions and supplies.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

House Bill 227 is a companion bill to Senate Bill 122.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

Under the proposed act, the department would be required to employ three employees for the op-

erations of the board regardless of funds available.

According to RLD, this legislation pertains to “Front End Regulation,” and the standards and

ideals that support the health, safety and welfare of people and animals through education, assis-

tance and training. RLD contends that the goal of Front End Regulation is to educate not penal-

ize.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

If House Bill 227, or its counterpart, were not passed, a state board for oversight of sheltering

services would not be created. The current status would be maintained.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

What would the animal sheltering services act provide for if a shelter and its management

continually make offenses under the proposed act. At what point could a shelter be

closed.

2.

Are the practices of providing unsafe, unhealthy living conditions, and the improper prac-

House Bill 227 – Page

4

tice of euthanasia not included in “cruelty to animals” statutes already inexistence.

3.

Would the proposed $100 thousand in the executive special recommendation cover both

the personnel proposed and the required RLD overhead charges for administrative sup-

port and supplies.

4.

What is the annual estimated collections of gifts, grants, donations, etc that the board

would receive. Would these funds be used to “defray the cost of implementing the

board’s initiatives.”

EM/mt