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 Campos
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
2/1/06
HB 476
SHORT TITLE Municipal Income Tax Distribution
SB
ANALYST Francis
REVENUE (dollars in thousands)
Estimated Revenue
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY06
FY07
FY08
(5,650.0)
(11,300.0) Recurring General Fund
5,650.0
11,300.0 Recurring Municipal Gov-
ernments
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
Responses Received From
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 476 reduces gross receipts tax (GRT) revenue distributions to municipalities and in-
troduces a new distribution of personal income tax from the state to the municipality. The mu-
nicipality will receive the greater of 0.225 percent of GRT that originates in the municipality or
0.275 percent of the total adjusted gross income (AGI) reported by residents of the municipality
made in equal monthly distributions. The municipality will be able to pledge the new distribu-
tion if GRT revenues and distributions fall below a level needed for debt service. The munici-
pality will still receive a 1 percent distribution of GRT revenues.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
TRD estimates by municipality are shown below. Column one shows the estimated FY06 distri-
bution that the municipality would receive under current law. Column two shows the new distri-
bution reflecting the larger of the 0.225 percent GRT or 0.275 percent of AGI. These estimates
are approximate and the real distribution in FY06 may be different.
pg_0002
House Bill 476 – Page
2
Illustration: Estimated Impacts Proposed Legislation by Municipality
Municipality
Estimated FY06 Distribution Estimated New Distribution
Change from
Estimated Distri-
bution
Alamogordo
7,645,621
7,645,621
-
Albuquerque
187,290,651
187,290,651
-
Angel Fire
1,015,537
1,015,537
-
Artesia
4,495,551
4,630,160
134,609
Aztec
1,793,009
2,055,529
262,520
Bayard
231,704
262,375
30,671
Belen
2,594,947
2,819,107
224,160
Bernalillo
1,156,220
1,251,977
95,757
Bloomfield
2,299,708
2,389,421
89,713
Bosque Farms
428,774
627,581
198,807
Capitan
178,085
217,403
39,318
Carlsbad
7,862,965
7,862,965
-
Carrizozo
143,156
156,008
12,853
Causey
4,367
5,680
1,313
Chama
302,105
302,105
-
Cimarron
124,817
142,324
17,507
Clayton
483,100
483,100
-
Cloudcroft
268,888
298,841
29,953
Clovis
9,698,928
9,698,928
-
Columbus
81,688
370,317
288,629
Corona
29,535
40,475
10,939
Corrales
1,121,491
1,646,724
525,234
Cuba
257,210
432,513
175,303
Deming
3,347,633
3,347,633
-
Des Moines
31,580
159,714
128,134
Dexter
296,594
346,943
50,349
Dora
40,447
53,961
13,514
Eagle Nest
78,349
78,349
-
Edgewood
916,761
1,259,679
342,918
Elephant Butte
166,367
294,622
128,254
Elida
28,707
215,376
186,669
Encino
13,860
18,058
4,198
Espanola
4,206,885
4,206,885
-
Estancia
414,897
414,897
-
Eunice
958,740
958,740
-
Farmington
26,387,168
26,387,168
-
Floyd
37,451
650,525
613,075
Folsom
7,196
12,953
5,757
Fort Sumner
193,890
193,890
-
Gallup
8,514,177
8,514,177
-
Grady
12,456
351,375
338,918
Grants
2,316,516
2,316,516
-
Grenville
680
101,570
100,890
Hagerman
142,165
156,564
14,399
Hatch
311,914
332,022
20,108
Hobbs
14,966,735
14,966,735
-
Hope
4,826
261,686
256,859
House
37,903
38,488
586
Hurley
145,742
150,023
4,281
Jal
358,167
362,380
4,213
Jemez Springs
69,894
183,334
113,440
Lake Arthur
26,691
82,756
56,065
pg_0003
House Bill 476 – Page
3
Illustration: Estimated Impacts Proposed Legislation by Municipality
Municipality
Estimated FY06 Distribution Estimated New Distribution
Change from
Estimated Distri-
bution
Las Cruces
28,695,585
28,695,585
-
Las Vegas
3,447,927
4,422,414
974,487
Logan
114,145
285,178
171,033
Lordsburg
576,048
576,048
-
Los Alamos
9,454,618
9,454,618
-
Los Lunas
4,177,966
4,806,133
628,167
Los Ranchos
1,112,030
1,206,394
94,364
Loving
112,685
133,445
20,760
Lovington
2,713,893
2,713,893
-
Magdalena
141,247
255,724
114,477
Maxwell
28,405
45,226
16,821
Melrose
79,163
93,328
14,165
Mesilla
382,545
544,492
161,947
Milan
898,387
898,387
-
Moriarty
971,691
974,400
2,708
Mosquero
17,123
64,560
47,437
Mountainair
136,428
155,222
18,795
Pecos
141,258
207,444
66,186
Portales
2,313,386
2,313,386
-
Questa
212,649
331,285
118,636
Raton
1,579,886
1,579,886
-
Red River
417,377
439,577
22,199
Reserve
55,598
73,330
17,732
Rio Rancho
12,382,570
12,636,025
253,456
Roswell
11,558,942
11,600,528
41,586
Roy
28,497
438,170
409,674
Ruidoso
3,146,948
3,146,948
-
Ruidoso Downs 1,341,714
1,341,714
-
San Jon
73,900
2,566,076
2,492,176
San Ysidro
52,051
53,785
1,734
Santa Clara
43,355
183,339
139,984
Santa Fe
39,752,907
39,752,907
-
Santa Rosa
993,013
993,013
-
Silver City
3,773,987
3,773,987
-
Socorro
1,994,658
2,050,706
56,049
Springer
98,610
115,596
16,987
Sunland Park
1,376,145
1,376,145
-
Taos
4,679,004
4,679,004
-
Taos Ski Valley 508,463
508,463
-
Tatum
247,803
383,628
135,825
Texico
34,895
73,889
38,994
Tijeras
413,503
834,898
421,394
Truth or Consequences 1,011,317
1,136,931
125,613
Tucumcari
1,415,397
1,421,860
6,463
Tularosa
345,482
441,625
96,143
Vaughn
104,785
131,356
26,571
Virden
2,276
5,363
3,086
Wagon Mound
66,931
66,931
-
Willard
5,416
14,847
9,432
Williamsburg
25,685
43,141
17,456
Totals
436,800,739
448,103,189
11,302,449
pg_0004
House Bill 476 – Page
4
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Personal income tends to be more stable over the long term and so by mixing the “portfolio” of
revenue streams, municipalities can decrease the volatility of their revenue stream.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
TRD:
These changes can be implemented with existing resources.
The PIT forms would need to change in tax year 2007 to determine the site of residence of
income tax payers, which is not reported on current tax returns. These changes could not be
made before tax year 2007. Therefore, this information would not be available when the
modified distribution formula takes effect. Although the proposal authorizes the Department
to come up with an alternative means of determining local distribution in 2007, the lack of
accurate residence information will make it difficult for the Department to do so.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
TRD:
1) Taxpayers who recognize losses in a given year often report negative figures for adjusted
gross income. In tax year 2004, total adjusted gross income in one municipality – Causey--
summed to a negative amount. The proposal should probably be amended to specify that AGI
totals on which the proposed distributions would be based would exclude returns which re-
port negative AGI. The fiscal impact estimates shown above are based on this presumption.
2) The proposal does not specify what revenue source TRD is to use in making the required
distribution. The bill should specify the intended source. Distributions based on AGI would
presumably be from personal income tax revenues. The measure is not extremely clear on
this issue, nor does it make it clear that the personal income tax revenues would be distrib-
uted on a monthly basis.
NF/nt