NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.
The LFC is only preparing FIRs on bills referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee and the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. The chief clerks are responsible for preparing and issuing all other bill analyses.
Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Internet/Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.
| SPONSOR: | Lujan | DATE TYPED: | 03/08/99 | HB | 685/aHTC | ||
| SHORT TITLE: | Gasoline Tax Revenue for Road Projects | SB | |||||
| ANALYST: | Esquibel | ||||||
| Subsequent
Years Impact |
Recurring
or Non-Rec |
Fund
Affected | ||
| FY99 | FY2000 | |||
| $ (16,071.0) | $ (16,071.0) | Recurring | County/Muni GFs | |
| $ 1,607.0 | $ 1,607.0 | Recurring | County Rd Fds | |
| $ 14,464.0 | $ 14,464.0 | Recurring | Muni Rd Fds | |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Conflicts with SB481
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HTC Amendment
The House Transportation Committee amendment to HB685 changes the bill's effective date from July 1, 1999 to August 1, 1999 to ensure the revenue impact begins in FY2000 given that revenue collected in July is distributed in August.
Synopsis of Bill
The bill proposes to redirect the local government share of gasoline tax revenue currently available for general purposes to be changed for use only for road-related purposes. Also, the use of revenue distributed from the gasoline excise tax to local governments for county and municipal roads would be expanded to include matching funds for cooperative agreements entered into with the State Highway and Transportation Department (SHTD).
The bill also proposes to amend the local government match requirement for cooperative agreements with SHTD from 40% to 25% of the project cost.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Under the provisions of the bill, TRD estimates county and municipal general funds would lose $16,071.0; county road funds would gain $1,607.0; and municipal road funds would gain $14,464.0 on a recurring basis.
CONFLICT/DUPLICATION/COMPANIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIP
House Bill 685 conflicts with Senate Bill 481which proposes to remove the local matching requirements for counties or municipalities to leverage funds from the local government road fund administered by SHTD. Under SB481, funds would be distributed from the local government road fund for the cooperative agreements program, municipal arterial program, school bus routes program, and county arterial program with no matching funds required from local governments.
RAE/prr