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 Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.





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





SPONSOR: Wright DATE TYPED: 03/10/99 HB 145/aHCPAC
SHORT TITLE: Designated Disabled Parking Provision SB
ANALYST: Segura


APPROPRIATION



Appropriation Contained
Estimated Additional Impact
Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY99 FY2000 FY99 FY2000
$ 0.0



(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)



Synopsis of HCPAC Amendment



The House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee Substitute for House Bill 145 includes the following significant changes:



The effective date in not specified, assume 90 days after adjournment (June 18, 1999). The Taxation and Revenue Department indicates that the comprehensive reissue of placards was accomplished July 1, 1995. The placards were renewed July 1, 1997 and will again be renewed under current law on July 1, 1999. Many mobility-impaired persons would like to renew their placards a month or two before expiration. The June 18, 1999 effective date will be sufficient to allow all the holders of two-year placards that expire July 1, 1999 to receive a new four-year placard. The Department will simply issue renewals after the effective date of this bill.



A technical issue raised by the department is that the fine increase for parking in a handicapped parking space from $50 to a range of $100 to $300 conflicts with 66-8-116 NMSA. That section provides a penalty assessment misdemeanor of $50 for violation of 66-7-352.5. Section 66-8-116 NMSA 1978 also provides that "no fine imposed upon later conviction shall exceed the penalty assessment established for the particular penalty assessment misdemeanor". In effect, 66-8-116 vetoes the proposed increase in fine.



The attached analysis by the Taxation and Revenue Department adequately addresses the intent and fiscal impact.



RS/njw

Attachment