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 Dow/Hernandez, J.
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 3/3/2025
SHORT TITLE Liquor License Transfer Criteria
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 478
ANALYST Montano
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
RLD/ABC
No fiscal
impact
$40.0
No fiscal
impact
$40.0 Nonrecurring
Liquor Control
Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Relates to House Bill(s) 498 and Senate Bill(s) 466
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 478
House Bill 478 (HB478) revises the Liquor Control Act by modifying the criteria for transferring
certain liquor licenses across local option districts and counties. The bill allows dispenser’s and
retailer’s licenses originally issued before July 1, 1981, to be transferred anywhere within the
state, with exceptions for certain class B counties and municipalities that have opted to prohibit
such transfers. The legislation removes previous restrictions that prevented the transfer of
licenses between local option districts based on voter referendums and instead requires only the
approval of the local governing body for such transfers.
Additionally, HB478 establishes that licenses transferred outside their original local option
district may only permit the sale of alcohol by the drink, except when transferred to districts that
have not exceeded their maximum license limits as outlined in the Liquor Control Act. In such
cases, licensees may sell both by the drink and in sealed packages for off-premises consumption,
including locally produced growlers. The bill also updates provisions for rural dispenser’s,
retailer’s, and club licenses, allowing them to be transferred to any eligible local option district
within counties that have not reached their maximum number of licenses. House Bill 478 – Page 2
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD) projects that the enactment of HB478 would
incur $40 thousand in one-time, non-recurring operating costs for the update and implementation
of the required changes to RLD’s NM plus licensing system. This $40 thousand will be used to
cover costs for software developers to make the required changes to four different license
application types.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The Department of Public Safety notes:
By removing municipal or county authority to prohibit liquor license transfers through
local elections, the bill may lead to liquor licenses being transferred to areas where they
may not be appropriate. Local communities often have unique needs and preferences
regarding alcohol availability, and this change could override local control, potentially
allowing liquor licenses in areas where they might contribute to public safety concerns or
community opposition. Municipalities and counties often regulate liquor licenses to
address specific public health and safety concerns in their regions. Removing local
authority to prevent the transfer of liquor licenses could undermine their ability to protect
the health and safety of their residents, particularly in areas that may already have issues
with alcohol-related crime or disorderly conduct.
Liquor establishments often require additional law enforcement resources to ensure that
they comply with regulations and maintain public order. If liquor licenses are transferred
to areas without regard for the capacity of local authorities to manage them, law
enforcement agencies could face an increased burden, potentially diverting resources
from other public safety needs in the community. In areas with limited oversight due to
the reduction of local control, there is a concern that this could open the door for
increased illegal activities, such as underage drinking or unlicensed alcohol sales. With
fewer checks and balances, law enforcement may find it harder to effectively monitor and
control alcohol distribution in certain regions.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
RLD expects that existing staff will be able to handle the new requirement of HB478 and expects
there to be no issues in maintaining performance.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
RLD staff will need approximately 2-3 months to implement changes in NM Plus licensing
system as developers will need to make changes to at least four applications identified by
licensing staff.
House Bill 478 – Page 3
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
RLD said:
HB498 also amends Section 60-6B-12 of the Liquor Control Act in the same manner as
HB478 without removing the local governing body’s ability to petition for an election to
approve or disapprove statewide transfers of liquor licenses into that LOD within one
hundred eighty (180) days of the effective date of the Act. SB466 also proposes changes
to the current Liquor Control Act
NM/rl/SL2