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 Block
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/14/2025
SHORT TITLE
Emergency Responders Property Tax
Exemption
BILL
NUMBER
Senate Joint
Resolution 10
ANALYST Faubion
REVENUE*
(dollars in thousands)
Type FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Property
Tax
$0.0
At least
($5,160.0)
At least
($5,370.0)
At least
($5,580.0)
At least
($5,800.0)
Recurring
Local
Governments
Parentheses ( ) indicate revenue decreases.
*Amounts reflect 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
SOS
No fiscal
impact
$30.0 to $50.0
No fiscal
impact
$30.0 to $50.0 Nonrecurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Secretary of State (SOS) Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD) NM Attorney General NM Municipal League NM Counties Because of the short timeframe between the introduction of this bill and its first hearing, LFC has yet to receive analysis from state, education, or judicial agencies. This analysis could be updated
if that analysis is received.
Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 2
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Joint Resolution 10
Senate Joint Resolution 10 (SJR10) proposes an amendment to Article VIII, Section 5 of the
New Mexico Constitution to grant a 50 percent property tax exemption to active and retired
emergency first responders who use the property as their primary residence. Eligible individuals
include full-time certified first responders who have worked for at least one year post-probation
or retired first responders receiving a pension equal to 100 percent of their final average salary
calculated in accordance with the provisions of the public employees retirement system
retirement plan.
SJR10 provides for the amendment to be put before the voters at the 2026 general election, or at
any special election prior to that date that may be called for that purpose. The amendment would
be effective if approved by voters.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Under Section 1-16-4 NMSA 1978 and the New Mexico Constitution, the Secretary of State
(SOS) is required to print samples of the text of each constitutional amendment in both Spanish
and English in an amount equal to 10 percent of the registered voters in the state. SOS is required
to publish the samples once a week for four weeks preceding the election in newspapers in every
county in the state. Further, the number of constitutional amendments on the ballot may impact
the ballot page size or cause the ballot to be more than one page, also increasing costs. The
estimated cost per constitutional amendment is $35 thousand to $50 thousand, depending on the
size and number of ballots and if additional ballot stations are needed.
Should this proposed constitutional amendment be approved by voters, it could have significant
costs to local governments, the primary beneficiaries of property tax revenue. PERA reported in
their 2024 financial report 2,236 active state police, 3,666 active municipal police, and 2,785
active municipal fire. PERA also reported 1,844 retired state police, 4,311 retired municipal
police, and 2,327 retired municipal fire. Of those retirees, only 156 are retired with 30+ years of
service and therefore likely to qualify for 100 percent pay. That means approximately 8,843 first
responders would qualify for this exemption. If the definition of first responder includes more
than state and municipal fire or police, the cost could be much higher.
Source: PERA 2024 Financial Report
Estimating the fiscal impact of this proposal is challenging because to accurately assess the fiscal
effects, detailed data is needed on the current value and zoning of properties, the number and
distribution of eligible first responders eligible for exemptions, and the location of all affected
properties across different tax districts. Additionally, the specific tax rates applied in each Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 3
jurisdiction and the proportion of properties that will benefit from these changes are critical to
understanding how taxable value will be reduced. Without this granular information, it is
difficult to predict how this exemption will impact property tax revenues at the local and state
levels.
Compounding this uncertainty is the interplay with New Mexico's yield control mechanism,
which limits overall property tax revenue growth to 5 percent or less annually for residential and
nonresidential properties separately. 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, 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 all properties affected by this bill.
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 residential 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 residential 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, PERA
membership, homeownership rates, home values, land value, and property sales. 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 or gain is estimated for the new exemption. Then,
the analysis applied that taxable value change 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 Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 4
adjustments and yield control are applied to find total net loss, post yield control and post debt
mill adjustment.
A high degree of uncertainty exists when analyzing the exemption because of a lack of data on
the number of first responders who may claim this exemption, the value of their homes, and tax
districts in which they reside. LFC distributed the total number of PERA members that are
estimated to qualify for this exemption across counties by the county share of total net taxable
value in the state. This could over- or under-estimate the impact in each county depending on the
actual density of first responders.
Increasing this exemption to include all disabled veterans results in a pre-yield-control estimated
loss of $12.1 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 $4.8 million
across entities, mostly from lost revenue for special mill levies that cannot be adjusted by yield
control. This means that $7.3 million of the lost revenue is paid for my other New Mexicans,
including those elderly or disabled on value freezes, veteran homeowners, and low-income of
fixed-income home owners. This current-year estimate is grown each year by housing inflation
estimates for out-year cost estimates.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
SJR10 does not provide a clear definition of "first responder," which could lead to ambiguity in
determining eligibility for the proposed 50 percent property tax exemption. The lack of a
definition raises questions about which professions qualify—whether it includes only traditional
emergency personnel such as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics, or if it extends to
other roles like dispatchers, emergency management personnel, or certain hospital staff involved
in emergency care. Without a precise definition in the resolution itself, the state legislature would
likely need to define "first responder" through enabling legislation to ensure consistency in
application. This definition would need to specify job titles, certification requirements, and
whether both sworn and civilian emergency personnel qualify. Without such clarification, the
amendment could lead to legal disputes, inconsistent implementation across different
jurisdictions, or unintended exclusions of professionals who serve critical emergency response
roles. This definition could also expand the benefit to many more people than assumed in this
fiscal impact.
Section C-1 of SJR10 specifies that the 50 percent property tax exemption applies to full-time,
certified emergency first responders who have worked for at least one year after completing any
probationary period required by a local government, implying that only locally employed first
responders are eligible while active. In contrast, Section C-2 applies to retired first responders
who receive a pension equal to 100 percent of their final average salary under the state public
employees retirement system, which includes both local and state employees. This distinction
could create confusion regarding whether active first responders employed by the state (rather
than a local government) would qualify for the exemption. Since C-1 explicitly ties eligibility to
local government employment while C-2 is based on the state retirement system, it is unclear if
an active state-employed first responder—such as a state police officer or a firefighter working
for a state-run facility—would be entitled to the exemption before retirement. Clarification is
needed to determine if active state-employed first responders are intentionally excluded or if the Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 5
intent was to include all active first responders regardless of employer.
The amendment places the burden of proof on claimants, but the legislature should establish
clear guidelines here or in enabling legislation for how applicants verify their eligibility. This
could involve requiring documentation from employers, retirement systems, or certification
boards to prevent fraud or misinterpretation.
PERA notes the following:
“Certified emergency first responder” is not defined. It is unclear who would be covered
by the exemption. The language includes that the exemption shall be “as provided by
law,” signaling the need for enabling legislation, which would likely clarify the meaning
of this term. However, without further information on what will be included in that
legislation, PERA is unable to provide an exact number of individuals who could be
affected by this joint resolution. Enacting legislation, or potentially this joint resolution,
would also need to account for members who have earned service credit under multiple
coverage plans. It is foreseeably that a member could have a short period of time during
their career that they were not considered a first responder, which could effectively
prevent a member from earning the entirety of their service credit as a first responder.
The language of the joint resolution is seemingly limited to active emergency first
responders who are employed by local governments and not active emergency first
responders employed by the state. However, there is no limitation that the retiree be
retired from a local government. Furthermore, the language could be read to allow an
active member, who was employed by a local government and completed the
probationary period and then later became employed by the state, to continue to receive
the property tax exemption.
Due to the structure of Subsection C of Section 1 of the joint resolution, it seems clear
that an individual would need to satisfy both Paragraphs (2) and (3), however, there could
be ambiguity as to whether an individual would need to satisfy only Paragraph (1) or both
Paragraphs (1) and (3). PERA will defer to the traditional drafting conventions, but as a
proposed constitutional amendment, it is advisable to ensure the intent regarding
occupancy is clear within the joint resolution.
The joint resolution could potentially incentivize members to postpone retirement and
continue working or to suspend retirement and become reemployed to obtain 100 percent
of the members’ final average salary. For a member who is covered under a plan with a 3
percent multiplier, that member would need to earn 33.3 years of service credit. Service
credit multipliers vary by plan and range between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent. Certain
members covered under the State Public Safety Plan also receive a service credit
enhancement. The length of time that a member would need to work to obtain a pension
benefit equal to 100 percent of the members Final Average Salary will depend on what
members are considered “certified emergency responders” and the coverage plans
applicable to those members.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The LFC tax policy of accountability may be met. TRD has recently begun publishing the
property tax abstracts from the county assessors that list the county property tax exemptions. Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 6
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
and valuation changes than is recorded in the TER.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
In assessing all tax legislation, LFC staff considers whether the proposal is aligned with
committee-adopted tax policy principles. Those five principles:
Adequacy: Revenue should be adequate to fund needed government services.
Efficiency: Tax base should be as broad as possible and avoid excess reliance on one tax.
Equity: Different taxpayers should be treated fairly.
Simplicity: Collection should be simple and easily understood.
Accountability: Preferences should be easy to monitor and evaluate
JF/SL2/rl
Attachments:
1) Post-Yield Control Cost by Taxing Entity
2) Pre-Yield Control Cost by Taxing Entity
Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 7
Attachment 1
County
Operating
County
Debt
Muni Average
Operating Muni Avg Debt
School Avg
Operating
School Avg
De bt
Special
Average
State
GOB Total Cost
Bernalillo -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,704,458$ - $ 2,704,458$
Catron 1,964$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 294$ -$ 2,258$
Chaves -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 32,096$ -$ 32,096$
Cibola -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,820$ -$ 4,820$
Colfax -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,336$ -$ 10,336$
Curry -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,252$ -$ 14,252$
De Baca -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 163$ -$ 163$
Dona Ana -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 262,237$ -$ 262,237$
Eddy -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 48,843$ -$ 48,843$
Grant -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,327$ -$ 12,327$
Guadalup
e -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,111$ -$ 1,111$
Harding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28$ -$ 28$
Hidalgo -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 91$ -$ 91$
Lea -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29,080$ -$ 29,080$
Lincoln -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 99,253$ -$ 99,253$
Los Alamo -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 57,234$ -$ 57,234$
Luna -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,525$ -$ 2,525$
McKinley -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,079$ -$ 14,079$
Mora -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 988$ -$ 988$
Otero -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31,474$ -$ 31,474$
Quay -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,424$ -$ 1,424$
Rio Arriba -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29,173$ -$ 29,173$
Roosevelt -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,426$ -$ 2,426$
San Juan -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 104,871$ -$ 104,871$
San Migue -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,901$ -$ 10,901$
Sandoval -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 399,360$ -$ 399,360$
Santa Fe -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 705,276$ -$ 705,276$
Sierra -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,031$ -$ 7,031$
Socorro -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,056$ -$ 8,056$
Taos -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 62,177$ -$ 62,177$
Torrance 8,218$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,410$ -$ 11,628$
Union -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 860$ -$ 860$
Valencia -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 97,916$ -$ 97,916$
10,182$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,758,570$ - $ 4,768,752$
Post-Yield Control Cost by Taxing Entity
Senate Joint Resolution 10 – Page 8
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
826,057$ 150,257$ 733,384$ 589,335$ 32,001$ 538,163$ 2,704,458$ 161,669$ 5,735,324$ 5,573,655$ 161,669$
Catron
1,964$ -$ 369$ -$ 83$ 495$ 294$ 225$ 3,431$ 3,205$ 225$
Chaves
19,110$ -$ 23,713$ -$ 936$ 21,233$ 32,096$ 4,898$ 101,988$ 97,089$ 4,898$
Cibola
4,714$ -$ 2,147$ 263$ 196$ 5,116$ 4,820$ 716$ 17,972$ 17,256$ 716$
Colfax
14,469$ -$ 8,643$ 6,383$ 548$ 7,669$ 10,336$ 2,066$ 50,114$ 48,048$ 2,066$
Curry
35,587$ -$ 16,808$ -$ 1,802$ 18,593$ 14,252$ 4,991$ 92,033$ 87,041$ 4,991$
De Baca
269$ -$ 51$ -$ 11$ 128$ 163$ 35$ 658$ 622$ 35$
Dona Ana
274,620$ 2,464$ 148,834$ 67,837$ 10,191$ 221,168$ 262,237$ 41,365$ 1,028,716$ 987,351$ 41,365$
Eddy
20,473$ -$ 16,578$ -$ 1,352$ 16,526$ 48,843$ 5,101$ 108,873$ 103,772$ 5,101$
Grant
11,786$ 1,988$ 5,499$ -$ 509$ 4,175$ 12,327$ 2,319$ 38,603$ 36,284$ 2,319$
Guadalupe
1,053$ -$ 566$ -$ 40$ 448$ 1,111$ 154$ 3,371$ 3,217$ 154$
Harding
61$ -$ 10$ -$ 3$ 61$ 28$ 10$ 173$ 163$ 10$
Hidalgo
478$ -$ 127$ -$ 20$ 306$ 91$ 62$ 1,084$ 1,022$ 62$
Lea
20,101$ -$ 11,585$ -$ 740$ 16,554$ 29,080$ 3,951$ 82,011$ 78,060$ 3,951$
Lincoln
35,040$ -$ 35,524$ 12,967$ 2,100$ 37,827$ 99,253$ 9,344$ 232,054$ 222,710$ 9,344$
Los Alamos
62,711$ -$ 42,173$ -$ 3,700$ 108,054$ 57,234$ 16,776$ 290,649$ 273,873$ 16,776$
Luna
10,768$ -$ 4,399$ 2,101$ 498$ 5,735$ 2,525$ 1,355$ 27,381$ 26,026$ 1,355$
McKinley
8,436$ -$ 8,070$ 1,743$ 391$ 9,726$ 14,079$ 1,593$ 44,039$ 42,446$ 1,593$
Mora
1,202$ 306$ 940$ -$ 46$ 1,039$ 988$ 212$ 4,733$ 4,522$ 212$
Otero
34,844$ -$ 25,929$ 9,423$ 1,585$ 34,769$ 31,474$ 7,136$ 145,160$ 138,024$ 7,136$
Quay
2,479$ -$ 1,647$ -$ 110$ 1,723$ 1,424$ 362$ 7,745$ 7,382$ 362$
Rio Arriba
14,010$ 4,322$ 9,472$ -$ 611$ 14,152$ 29,173$ 3,615$ 75,355$ 71,740$ 3,615$
Roosevelt
8,061$ -$ 3,242$ -$ 332$ 4,680$ 2,426$ 1,066$ 19,806$ 18,741$ 1,066$
San Juan
69,484$ -$ 28,208$ -$ 3,371$ 60,284$ 104,871$ 13,461$ 279,679$ 266,218$ 13,461$
San Miguel
10,623$ -$ 12,937$ -$ 393$ 17,892$ 10,901$ 2,558$ 55,303$ 52,745$ 2,558$
Sandoval
193,215$ 35,230$ 210,499$ 88,383$ 7,892$ 275,490$ 399,360$ 44,530$ 1,254,598$ 1,210,068$ 44,530$
Santa Fe
380,925$ 152,700$ 114,289$ 45,129$ 11,831$ 344,276$ 705,276$ 97,544$ 1,851,970$ 1,754,426$ 97,544$
Sierra
7,770$ -$ 2,390$ 3,371$ 364$ 4,200$ 7,031$ 1,011$ 26,138$ 25,127$ 1,011$
Socorro
5,422$ 586$ 2,921$ -$ 176$ 3,458$ 8,056$ 735$ 21,354$ 20,618$ 735$
Taos
32,454$ -$ 26,718$ 9,168$ 1,224$ 15,559$ 62,177$ 7,117$ 154,416$ 147,299$ 7,117$
Torrance
8,218$ 132$ 2,207$ -$ 299$ 5,195$ 3,410$ 943$ 20,405$ 19,462$ 943$
Union
1,038$ -$ 519$ -$ 41$ 457$ 860$ 145$ 3,060$ 2,915$ 145$
Valencia
50,297$ 5,187$ 45,254$ 12,183$ 1,586$ 58,946$ 97,916$ 10,034$ 281,403$ 271,369$ 10,034$
2,167,738$ 353,172$ 1,545,652$ 848,287$ 84,982$ 1,854,096$ 4,758,570$ 447,100$ 12,059,598$ 11,612,498$ 447,100$
Pre-Yield Control Cost by Taxing Entity
Attachment 2