Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR HGEIC
LAST UPDATED 1/31/2025
ORIGINAL DATE 1/26/2025
SHORT TITLE Veteran Property Tax Exemption
BILL
NUMBER
CS/House Bill
47/SHGEIC
ANALYST Graeser/Faubion
REVENUE*
(dollars in thousands)
Type FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Increase veteran
exemption to $10K
0.0 ($6,050.0) ($6,300.0) ($6,550.0) ($6,810.0) Recurring Local Governments
Expand Disabled
Veteran Exemption
0.0 0.0 ($26,880.0) ($27,900.0) ($29,100.0) Recurring Local Governments
Parentheses ( ) indicate revenue decreases.
*Amounts reflect the most recent analysis of this legislation.
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Veteran’s Affairs
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Minimal Recurring General Fund
County
Assessors
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Minimal Recurring
Local General
or Revaluation
Funds
Total
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Minimal Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect the most recent analysis of this legislation.
Conflicts with SB 192.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
DFA property tax certificates
TRD property tax abstracts
Agency Analysis Received From
New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA) NM Counties Department of Health (DOH)
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
2
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From Department of Finance, Local Government Division (DFA/LGD)
Taxation and Revenue Department (NMTRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 47
House Bill 47 implements the provisions of the constitutional amendments increasing the
veteran’s property tax exemption from $4,000 to $10 thousand (House Joint Resolution 6 from
2023) and allowing a proportional property tax exemption equal to the percentage of service-
related disability (HJR 5 from 2023). Beginning with the 2026 property tax year, the $10
thousand exemption will be adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.
This bill contains an emergency clause and would become effective immediately on signature by
the governor. The $10 thousand veteran exemption is applicable to the 2025 property tax year.
The disabled veteran exemption is applicable to the 2026 property tax year.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
This bill expands a tax expenditure. Although the impacts are complicated, the bill serves to
implement the expansions of the veteran’s property tax exemptions in the New Mexico
constitution approved by the voters in November 2024. Because this was approved by the voters,
the costs of this bill should be considered as an adjustment of the tax base and not a direct impact
of this piece of legislation.
These two veteran exemptions reduce the net taxable value of veteran-owned properties; they
reduce veteran property tax liability by reducing how their properties are valued. This
mechanism creates several complications in analyzing the effect and implementation of these
exemptions.
First, the yield control statute (7-37-7.1 NMSA 1978) adjusts operating tax rates to offset
revenue losses or gains from outsized changes to the aggregate property taxable values within
each tax district. When taxable property values grow too much within a district, yield control
will reduce the tax rate to maintain “reasonable” revenue growth. If aggregate property values
decline, as would be the case in both veteran exemptions, the tax rate can be increased for the
entire tax district to maintain revenue. The magnitude of this offsetting in this case is difficult to
calculate without access to very specific tax information for veteran property owners.
Second, bond capacity will decrease because of the veteran exemptions, and the state, many
schools, and municipalities issue debt periodically rather than every two years, which could
create challenges in servicing debt with reduced revenues.
Third, the large increase in the exemptions, as well as publicity efforts by veterans' groups and
the Veteran’s Affairs Department, may lead to more claims than currently reported or predicted.
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
3
Fourth, the bill is silent on how assessors should implement “stacking” of the two exemptions
and on how to apply the exemptions in multi-veteran households. Different methodologies on
how to apply the exemptions greatly affect cost estimates.
Once these exemptions are claimed, total net taxable value of properties will decrease. Roughly
60 percent of the costs of these new exemptions will be transferred to veterans and nonveterans
alike through an increase of operating mill levies through yield control. As previously explained,
the exemptions are considered taxable value loss (valuation maintenance), and the reduction in
this amount for each jurisdiction means that yield-controlled rates increase for all property
owners, veterans and nonveterans alike.
The analysis did not disaggregate the effect on nonresidential levies. About 10 percent of
veterans currently claim their flat exemption for nonresidential properties—primarily vacant land
or commercial buildings. This is allowed by statute.
County, municipal, and school operating mill levies are subject to yield control, and those
entities can offset losses to net taxable value by increasing the mill rate, if there is sufficient
“space” between their imposed rate, the rate approved by their local governing bodies, and the
current yield-controlled rate, the actual rate levied as calculated by the Department of Finance
and Administration (DFA). Most yield-controlled levies have ample room to increase rates
because yield control has suppressed their actual rate levied over time. However, some entities
do not have any space to increase mills because their imposed and actual mill levies are the same
and at or close to the constitutional limit. They may not have enough room to cover the estimated
impact on their revenues. For example, Catron and Torrance counties have maxed their mill
imposition and have no yield-control space to recoup lost revenue. Roughly 15 municipalities
may also be at risk of being unable to recoup revenues. This analysis averages municipal mill
levies and does not examine each of the municipality’s financial position within each county.
There is some debate of whether local governments can increase revenues by imposing
additional mills if they have not imposed all the constitutionally allowed mills.
Debt mills, including the state general obligation bond debt mills, can be adjusted to fulfill debt
obligations as approved by voters; voters do not approve mills, only debt issuance, so local
governments and the state can increase the mills to fulfill those obligations without other
approvals. This analysis assumes no net revenue loss for debt mills. However, some districts may
not choose to raise their debt mills and will experience a revenue loss on those mills. Some
special mills, such as those for conservation districts, some hospitals, higher education
institutions, etc., are not subject to yield control and may not have the ability to be adjusted if net
taxable value decreases. This is the majority of the revenue loss forecasted.
LFC used 2024 property tax certificates from DFA to analyze residential taxable values, mill
rates, tax obligations, and yield-control effects for counties, municipalities, school districts, and
special districts. The analysis also relied on county abstracts of property valuations, federal
veteran and census data on number of veterans, number and share of disabled veterans,
homeownership rates, and home values. LFC assumed mill rates would be adjusted for all debt
mills and adjusted operating mills as yield-control space allowed. First, the total net taxable
value loss is estimated for both veteran exemptions. Then, the analysis applied that taxable value
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
4
loss to each type of mill in the district, aggregated at the county level, to find the pre-yield
control revenue loss across types. Then, mill levy adjustments and yield control are applied to
find total net loss, post yield control and post debt mill adjustment.
Flat Veteran Exemption. According to TRD’s tax abstracts, 65,808 veterans claimed the flat
veteran exemption in 2023, for a total taxable value loss of $269 million statewide. Increasing
this exemption to $10 thousand from $4,000 results in a pre-yield-control estimated loss of $13.6
million across all beneficiaries, mostly to local governments. However, after yield control, most
county and municipal operating revenue, school revenue, and revenue for debt obligations lost
due to the exemption increase can be made up by increasing the mill rate for those levies on all
properties, reducing the total revenue loss to approximately $5.6 across entities, mostly from lost
revenue for special mill levies that cannot be adjusted by yield control. This current-year
estimate is grown each year by housing inflation estimates for out-year cost estimates. Veterans
benefit from the exemption only over the amount of the increase transferred to all taxpayers
through the action of yield control.
Disabled Veteran Exemption. A higher degree of uncertainty exists when analyzing the
disabled veteran exemption because of a lack of data on the number of disabled veterans who
may claim this exemption, the value of their homes, and tax districts in which they reside. The
2023 abstracts from the Taxation and Revenue Department note a total of 13,457 100-percent
disabled veteran exemption claims. The Veteran Services Department (VSD) reported a total of
10,306 100-percent disabled veterans in 2023. The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs reported
45,514 disabled veterans across the state in 2023. This data does not match 2023 property tax
data on the number of 100-percent disabled veterans, and the source of the discrepancy is
unknown.
Increasing this exemption to include all disabled veterans results in a pre-yield-control estimated
loss of $56.9 million across all beneficiaries, mostly to local governments. However, after yield
control, most county and municipal operating revenue, public school revenue, and revenue for
debt obligations lost due to the exemption increase can be made up by increasing the mill rate for
those levies on all properties, reducing the total revenue loss to approximately $23.9 across
entities, mostly from lost revenue for special mill levies that cannot be adjusted by yield control.
This current-year estimate is grown each year by housing inflation estimates for out-year cost
estimates.
NM Counties notes the following:
County governments rely predominantly on property tax revenues and will bear the most
significant fiscal impacts of the new veteran property tax exemptions. Property taxes
contribute to more than half of each county’s annual revenue. Yield control will shift the
cost of the new veteran’s exemptions to other property owners except in situations where
the county is already at the cap of their mill rate. If the county is at the cap, they are
unable to redistribute the burden to other taxpayers and will experience a direct reduction
in their property tax revenues.
Special tax districts (i.e. higher education institutions, hospitals) do not have the
advantage of yield control and are likely to experience a direct reduction in their revenues
from the new veteran’s exemptions. Enabling language should consider the fiscal impacts
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
5
to these entities and any bonds that they may have with pledged tax revenues.
The “veteran exemption” is estimated to shift the operating mill rate property tax burden
to nonveterans in the state of New Mexico through yield control. This will increase the
cost to all other property taxpayers, including low-income senior citizens and other
people with a disability currently on the valuation freeze program.
Additionally, it is important to note that the “veteran exemption” is indexed for inflation,
while the existing head of family exemption is not. Therefore, the “value” or property tax
savings provided to homeowners by the head of family exemption will diminish over
time as the $10 thousand veteran exemption only increases in value. This disparity will
grow over time and further shift the property tax burden to homeowners who are not
veterans. Similarly, the “disabled veteran exemption” is expected to shift a comparable
amount to other residential and homeowners through yield control.
The New Mexico Department of Veterans Services has stated that these exemptions are
competitive or more competitive than the neighboring state of Texas, which means more
veterans may relocate to New Mexico. This could further shift the tax burden onto other
homeowners as more individuals would qualify for the exemptions.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The emergency clause is necessary to enact the enabling legislation in time for the county
assessors to include the $10 thousand veteran exemption on their 2025 notice of valuations,
which are submitted on April 1 each year preceding the tax year.
The provisions of this bill add burden to veterans who are not homeowners and other nonveteran
homeowners throughout the state. Although veteran non-homeowners may only be 20 percent of
eligible veterans, if these veterans are renters or unhoused, they will receive no benefits at all.
Veteran median income in 2023 was 50 percent higher for veterans than for other adults, $50,335
versus $33,548.
NM Counties notes the following:
It should be noted that veterans can currently stack the “veteran exemption” if more than
one veteran is listed on community or joint property. New Mexico Constitution Article
VIII, Section 5, does not require that the veteran exemption only apply to the primary
residence. For example, if multiple veterans are on the title, they can currently claim an
$8,000 stacked reduction in property tax valuation for multiple properties including
second homes, multi-use properties, non-residential, etc.
The “disabled veteran exemption” is silent on the issue of multiple disabled veterans and
the potential of stacking the percentage of disability, however, New Mexico Constitution
Article VIII, Section 15, identifies that the exemption is only provided to the principal
place of residence. Because the 100 percent exemption reduced the tax liability to zero,
this issue was never addressed in legislation nor in the language of the constitution.
Direction must be provided to clarify if two disabled individuals on the same principal
property can stack the percentages, if only the higher will be applied, if the higher
amount will be applied first and then the lower percentage applied to the remainder, etc.
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
6
Without clear direction from the legislation or a mandate for Taxation and Revenue to
promulgate regulations, there is a potential for inconsistencies in implementation by
county assessors.
The dates proposed for the “disable veteran exemption” are also critical to the
implementation of this new exemption. It is impossible to determine the fiscal impact to
county budgets until an individual, with a specific percentage of disability, files for the
exemption on a specific property. For example, a 40 percent disabled veteran receiving a
discount on a $100,000 property would diminish the taxable value by $40,000. If that
same individual owned a $1,000,000 property, the taxable value would diminish by
$400,000. This nuance tied to the specific individual and the individual property make it
impossible for counties to fully understand the financial impact to their budgets until the
exemption is filed.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The LFC tax policy of accountability may be met. TRD has recently begun publishing the
abstracts from the county assessors that list the county total veterans, disabled veterans, and
homeowners’ exemptions. These data are aggregated and are now published in the annual Tax
Expenditure Report (TER). However, more information may be needed to properly evaluate the
impact of these exemptions than are recorded in the TER.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The Veteran’s Affairs Department currently certifies about 16,850 fully or partially disabled
veterans and 112 thousand regular veterans, for a total of almost 130 thousand veterans eligible
for property tax exemptions if these veterans own and occupy a principal residence. The LFC
analysis expects these numbers to increase because these changes provide significant additional
financial benefits to both disabled and nondisabled veterans. Individual county assessors will
possibly experience a nonrecurring increase in requested exemptions for the 2025 and 2026
property tax year. Both VAD and the county assessors will experience a two-year administrative
burden, but certification thereafter will only be for new claims.
Once certified, the county assessors should have minimal difficulties tracking these exemptions
over time. TRD will calculate the appropriate inflation factor and send it to the assessors prior to
the calculation and publication of the valuations by April 1 of the property tax year.
NM Counties notes the following:
County assessors are responsible for identifying and implementing both exemptions. The
expansion of the “veteran exemption” to include reservists will result in additional FTE
to process the applications and systems.
Similarly, the expansions to disabled veterans in an amount based on the percentage of
the veteran’s disability, as determined by federal law, places a heavy administrative
burdened on county assessors. County assessors do not have the resources nor expertise
to determine eligibility or the percentage of disability for veterans. Currently, the New
Mexico Department of Veterans Services issues certification of eligibility for veterans
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
7
that are provided by the veterans to the county assessors. The requirements and
administrative implications for the issuance of a percentage certificate by New Mexico
Veterans Affairs Department is unknown.
Annual deadlines for the “veteran exemption” and “veteran disability exemption” should
be required to ensure that exemptions are considered within the confines of the existing
property tax cycle. If a veteran submits an exemption request after the deadline, the
benefit should not be applied until the subsequent tax year.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Conflicts with Senate Bill 192 which also enacts enabling legislation for these two veteran
property tax exemptions.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
There is a small concern that bonds at the state level, school bonds, and county and municipal
bonds are all sold with covenants that the underlying jurisdiction will take no actions impairing
the ability of the jurisdiction to make all bond service payments timely. Many school districts,
municipalities, and counties issue bonds only periodically, not biennially. For these jurisdictions,
it may not be possible to adjust debt levies to cover the losses from the new exemptions.
The provisions of this bill are mandatory because the constitutional amendments are not self-
executing. The property tax is the oldest tax in New Mexico—in 1869 the voters imposed a
modest property tax to rescue the state from impending bankruptcy and updated the tax in 1872
to provide free public education. Subsequently, 1932 brought the 20-mill operating limit and the
1/3
rd
valuation ratio. In 1973, the current property tax code was enacted. The constitutional 20-
mill operating levy limit was allocated as 11.85 mills to the counties, 7.65 mills to the
municipalities (with 7.65 mills in county remainder areas outside municipal limits unallocated),
and 0.5 mills to schools. Statute now allows a number of dedicated and capital levies if approved
by the voters for school buildings and technology, county and municipal capital outlay, higher
education (community college) operating and debt levies, and special levies for soil and water
conservation districts. Yield control was first enacted in 1979.
The most recent substantial change to property taxes was enacted in 2000 and limits residential
assessment to increase by 3 percent per year. This was enacted to remediate “tax lightning” but,
in hindsight, has created as many problems as it solved. Piecemeal legislation to address certain
populations’ needs fails to address larger structural deficits in the property tax code.
Attachments:
A: Loss to Local Government Post Yield Control
B: Post-Yield-Control Cost by Tax Entity
C: Pre-Yield-Control Cost by Tax Entity
D: Number of Service-Connected Disability Recipients
E: New Mexico County Operating Rates
LG/JF/hj/hg
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
8
Attachment A
Veteran
Exemption
Disabled Veteran
Exemption
Operating Loss Special Districts
Total Revenue
Loss
Bernalillo 3,042,886$ 14,288,831$ - $ 17,331,718$ 17,331,718$
Catron 17,512$ 17,140$ 30,145$ 4,507$ 34,652$
Chaves 94,009$ 169,995$ -$ 264,004$ 264,004$
Cibola 29,866$ 58,644$ -$ 88,511$ 88,511$
Colfax 22,930$ 34,964$ -$ 57,895$ 57,895$
Curry 29,300$ 142,109$ -$ 171,410$ 171,410$
De Baca 3,267$ 3,424$ -$ 6,691$ 6,691$
Dona Ana 373,266$ 1,555,538$ -$ 1,928,803$ 1,928,803$
Eddy 96,857$ 267,721$ -$ 364,578$ 364,578$
Grant 64,494$ 126,762$ -$ 191,257$ 191,257$
Guadalupe 10,247$ 18,498$ -$ 28,745$ 28,745$
Harding 978$ 716$ -$ 1,693$ 1,693$
Hidalgo 1,556$ 1,110$ -$ 2,667$ 2,667$
Lea 54,256$ 90,351$ -$ 144,607$ 144,607$
Lincoln 71,221$ 218,280$ -$ 289,501$ 289,501$
Los Alamos 16,804$ 58,511$ -$ 75,314$ 75,314$
Luna 11,655$ 18,118$ -$ 29,774$ 29,774$
McKinley 44,342$ 94,879$ -$ 139,221$ 139,221$
Mora 10,124$ 23,270$ -$ 33,394$ 33,394$
Otero 119,936$ 507,837$ -$ 627,773$ 627,773$
Quay 11,343$ 21,702$ -$ 33,045$ 33,045$
Rio Arriba 85,677$ 179,023$ -$ 264,699$ 264,699$
Roosevelt 6,520$ 17,735$ -$ 24,255$ 24,255$
San Juan 155,507$ 413,139$ -$ 568,646$ 568,646$
San Miguel 37,291$ 182,570$ -$ 219,861$ 219,861$
Sandoval 464,889$ 2,323,324$ -$ 2,788,214$ 2,788,214$
Santa Fe 281,591$ 1,341,668$ -$ 1,623,259$ 1,623,259$
Sierra 40,655$ 91,877$ -$ 132,531$ 132,531$
Socorro 54,065$ 118,012$ -$ 172,077$ 172,077$
Taos 85,989$ 298,256$ -$ 384,245$ 384,245$
Torrance 86,640$ 110,528$ 139,340$ 57,828$ 197,168$
Union 6,393$ 5,898$ -$ 12,291$ 12,291$
Valencia 243,044$ 1,114,852$ -$ 1,357,896$ 1,357,896$
5,675,113$ 23,915,282$ 169,485.45$ 29,420,910$ 29,590,395$
Loss to Local Governments, Post Yield Control
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
9
Attachment B
County
Operating
County
Debt
Muni Average
Operating
Muni Avg
Debt
School Avg
Operating
School
Avg Debt
Special
Average
State
GOB Total Cost
Bernalillo -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17,331,718$ - $ 17,331,718$
Catron 30,145$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,507$ -$ 34,652$
Chaves -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 264,004$ -$ 264,004$
Cibola -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 88,511$ -$ 88,511$
Colfax -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 57,895$ -$ 57,895$
Curry -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 171,410$ -$ 171,410$
De Baca -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,691$ -$ 6,691$
Dona Ana -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,928,803$ - $ 1,928,803$
Eddy -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 364,578$ -$ 364,578$
Grant -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 191,257$ -$ 191,257$
Guadalup
e -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,745$ -$ 28,745$
Harding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,693$ -$ 1,693$
Hidalgo -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,667$ -$ 2,667$
Lea -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 144,607$ -$ 144,607$
Lincoln -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 289,501$ -$ 289,501$
Los Alamo -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 75,314$ -$ 75,314$
Luna -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29,774$ -$ 29,774$
McKinley -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 139,221$ -$ 139,221$
Mora -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 33,394$ -$ 33,394$
Otero -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 627,773$ -$ 627,773$
Quay -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 33,045$ -$ 33,045$
Rio Arriba -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 264,699$ -$ 264,699$
Roosevelt -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,255$ -$ 24,255$
San Juan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 568,646$ -$ 568,646$
San Migue -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 219,861$ -$ 219,861$
Sandoval -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,788,214$ - $ 2,788,214$
Santa Fe -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,623,259$ - $ 1,623,259$
Sierra -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 132,531$ -$ 132,531$
Socorro -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 172,077$ -$ 172,077$
Taos -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 384,245$ -$ 384,245$
Torrance139,340$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 57,828$ -$ 197,168$
Union -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,291$ -$ 12,291$
Valencia -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,357,896$ - $ 1,357,896$
169,485$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29,420,910$ - $ 29,590,395$
Post-Yield Control Cost by Taxing Entity
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
10
Attachment C
County
Operating County Debt
Muni Average
Operating Muni Avg Debt
School Avg
Operating School Avg Debt Special Average State GOB Total Cost Cost to Locals Cost to State
Bernalillo
5,293,845$ 962,933$ 4,699,944$ 3,776,796$ 205,081$ 3,448,860$ 17,331,718$ 1,036,067$ 35,135,494$ 34,099,427$ 1,036,067$
Catron
30,145$ -$ 5,660$ -$ 1,272$ 7,599$ 4,507$ 3,460$ 46,406$ 42,946$ 3,460$
Chaves
157,191$ -$ 195,051$ -$ 7,703$ 174,654$ 264,004$ 40,290$ 775,079$ 734,789$ 40,290$
Cibola
86,569$ -$ 39,424$ 4,836$ 3,593$ 93,947$ 88,511$ 13,153$ 309,258$ 296,105$ 13,153$
Colfax
81,043$ -$ 48,413$ 35,753$ 3,069$ 42,955$ 57,895$ 11,572$ 230,612$ 219,040$ 11,572$
Curry
428,020$ -$ 202,152$ -$ 21,668$ 223,623$ 171,410$ 60,030$ 1,066,178$ 1,006,148$ 60,030$
De Baca
11,056$ -$ 2,087$ -$ 469$ 5,283$ 6,691$ 1,457$ 25,762$ 24,305$ 1,457$
Dona Ana
2,019,881$ 18,121$ 1,094,705$ 498,956$ 74,956$ 1,626,734$ 1,928,803$ 304,246$ 6,640,765$ 6,336,519$ 304,246$
Eddy
152,821$ -$ 123,746$ -$ 10,095$ 123,354$ 364,578$ 38,072$ 711,961$ 673,889$ 38,072$
Grant
182,859$ 30,851$ 85,312$ -$ 7,892$ 64,769$ 191,257$ 35,984$ 525,855$ 489,870$ 35,984$
Guadalupe
27,248$ -$ 14,631$ -$ 1,025$ 11,586$ 28,745$ 3,981$ 80,246$ 76,264$ 3,981$
Harding
3,682$ -$ 592$ -$ 162$ 3,678$ 1,693$ 584$ 8,940$ 8,357$ 584$
Hidalgo
13,975$ -$ 3,724$ -$ 572$ 8,954$ 2,667$ 1,813$ 26,976$ 25,163$ 1,813$
Lea
99,960$ -$ 57,608$ -$ 3,680$ 82,321$ 144,607$ 19,648$ 386,346$ 366,697$ 19,648$
Lincoln
102,204$ -$ 103,616$ 37,823$ 6,127$ 110,334$ 289,501$ 27,254$ 545,192$ 517,937$ 27,254$
Los Alamos
82,521$ -$ 55,496$ -$ 4,869$ 142,188$ 75,314$ 22,075$ 382,464$ 360,389$ 22,075$
Luna
126,948$ -$ 51,864$ 24,776$ 5,874$ 67,609$ 29,774$ 15,977$ 287,322$ 271,345$ 15,977$
McKinley
83,419$ -$ 79,804$ 17,240$ 3,870$ 96,175$ 139,221$ 15,757$ 411,681$ 395,924$ 15,757$
Mora
40,622$ 10,353$ 31,773$ -$ 1,544$ 35,111$ 33,394$ 7,147$ 97,846$ 90,699$ 7,147$
Otero
694,990$ -$ 517,162$ 187,954$ 31,607$ 693,494$ 627,773$ 142,326$ 2,450,423$ 2,308,098$ 142,326$
Quay
57,508$ -$ 38,217$ -$ 2,544$ 39,975$ 33,045$ 8,411$ 163,352$ 154,942$ 8,411$
Rio Arriba
127,121$ 39,214$ 85,943$ -$ 5,547$ 128,402$ 264,699$ 32,799$ 600,561$ 567,762$ 32,799$
Roosevelt
80,606$ -$ 32,417$ -$ 3,321$ 46,796$ 24,255$ 10,657$ 184,566$ 173,909$ 10,657$
San Juan
376,766$ -$ 152,955$ -$ 18,280$ 326,879$ 568,646$ 72,992$ 1,304,601$ 1,231,609$ 72,992$
San Miguel
214,247$ -$ 260,926$ -$ 7,922$ 360,853$ 219,861$ 51,598$ 875,536$ 823,938$ 51,598$
Sandoval
1,348,968$ 245,964$ 1,469,646$ 617,061$ 55,101$ 1,923,388$ 2,788,214$ 310,896$ 8,082,001$ 7,771,105$ 310,896$
Santa Fe
876,735$ 351,453$ 263,046$ 103,868$ 27,230$ 792,384$ 1,623,259$ 224,508$ 3,915,192$ 3,690,684$ 224,508$
Sierra
146,454$ -$ 45,050$ 63,539$ 6,865$ 79,175$ 132,531$ 19,055$ 415,211$ 396,157$ 19,055$
Socorro
115,800$ 12,510$ 62,400$ -$ 3,752$ 73,851$ 172,077$ 15,710$ 422,873$ 407,163$ 15,710$
Taos
200,559$ -$ 165,113$ 56,656$ 7,562$ 96,150$ 384,245$ 43,979$ 663,431$ 619,451$ 43,979$
Torrance
139,340$ 2,246$ 37,430$ -$ 5,066$ 88,090$ 57,828$ 15,992$ 296,440$ 280,449$ 15,992$
Union
14,830$ -$ 7,411$ -$ 591$ 6,537$ 12,291$ 2,070$ 39,887$ 37,816$ 2,070$
Valencia
697,521$ 71,932$ 627,582$ 168,952$ 21,997$ 817,470$ 1,357,896$ 139,156$ 3,456,946$ 3,317,789$ 139,156$
14,115,457$ 1,745,576$ 10,660,899$ 5,594,210$ 560,906$ 11,843,175$ 29,420,910$ 2,748,716$ 70,565,402$ 67,816,686$ 2,748,716$
Pre-Yield Control Cost by Taxing Entity
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
11
Attachment D
Total SCD
Recipients
SCD rating:
0% to 20%
SCD rating:
30% to 40%
SCD rating:
50% to 60%
SCD rating:
70% to 90%
SCD rating:
100%
Bernalillo 15,937 3,297 1,840 1,981 5,283 3,536
Catron 1272811113839
Chaves 950 245 108 129 271 197
Cibola 434 70 45 54 153 112
Colfax 250 42 26 30 74 78
Curry 1,612 243 172 228 588 381
De Baca 44 6 6 6 15 11
Dona Ana 4,906 849 507 672 1,696 1,182
Eddy 739 163 106 101 240 129
Grant 630 134 62 72 219 143
Guadalupe 100 18 7 7 41 27
Harding 2445555
Hidalgo 66 17 12 9 19 9
Lea 611 162 91 84 182 92
Lincoln 439 99 56 47 133 104
Los Alamos 288 79 42 37 77 53
Luna 412 96 34 45 138 99
McKinley 825 129 86 119 297 194
Mora 1361110106144
Otero 3,004 598 394 420 1,041 551
Quay 213 40 20 33 70 50
Rio Arriba 506 90 47 46 188 135
Roosevelt 370 57 41 58 144 70
Sandoval 4,532 848 453 551 1,550 1,130
San Juan 1,679 355 186 221 565 352
San Miguel 642 87 55 58 262 180
Santa Fe 2,304 431 261 251 840 521
Sierra 37881325212687
Socorro 28552323410463
Taos 651 104 62 69 264 152
Torrance 392 49 46 40 144 113
Union 7317672320
Valencia 1,955 362 183 235 728 447
Total
45,514 8,863 5,044 5,722 15,579 10,306
US Department of Veteran Affairs
Number of Service Connected Disability (SCD) Recipients, by Rating and by County, 2023
CS/House Bill 47/SHGEIC – Page
12
Attachment E