SB 38 is a narrow repealer bill that removes the delayed repeal of the existing fees on registered pet food. In practical terms, the bill preserves the current pet food registration fee structure by repealing Laws 2020, Chapter 69, Section 6, which had set up the future expiration of those fees. The bill does not create a new fee or change the amount of the fee; it simply prevents the scheduled repeal from taking effect.
Because the measure is a repeal of a prior repeal provision, its legal effect is to keep the underlying pet food registration fee law in place under New Mexico law. The bill affects businesses and entities involved in the registered pet food market, as well as the state agencies that administer and collect the fee. It is a technical revenue-related measure rather than a broad policy change, and its impact is limited to maintaining the existing statutory framework for pet food fees.
Impact
SB 38 amends New Mexico law by repealing Laws 2020, Chapter 69, Section 6, thereby eliminating the delayed sunset of the fees on registered pet food. The result is that the fee authority remains in effect instead of expiring, preserving the state’s ability to continue collecting the fee from affected registrants and maintaining the administrative scheme tied to pet food registration.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around SB 38 appears generally favorable and procedural, with committee discussion treating it as a straightforward fee measure. The bill passed both chambers with comfortable margins, though not unanimously, suggesting some limited opposition or concern but no major controversy. The discussion in committee was brief and focused on the bill’s fee-related nature rather than on broader policy objections.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the continued imposition of a fee on registered pet food, which may have prompted some negative votes in both chambers. However, the available discussion does not show extended debate or detailed objections, and the committee comments suggest the bill was viewed as simply preserving an existing fee rather than expanding regulation. Any opposition likely centered on the policy of keeping the fee in place, while supporters emphasized the bill’s limited, technical nature.