The Truth or Consequences City Commission bought 210 Main St., the former PNC Bank building, for $430,000 at the July 24 meeting.
Mayor Rolf Hechler said “We had the building assessed and the price is below market value.” No documents were offered, so we are expected to take this on faith or do as I am often forced to do to verify an elected official’s or city employee’s assertion— submit a document request under the Inspection of Public Records Act.
I greatly appreciate City Clerk Angela Gonzales, Deputy City Clerk Luba Hoffman and Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk Katy Martinez. They promptly reply to my IPRA requests. They are the sunshine makers, the transparency brokers of the city. I requested the assessment documents today.
The city was required to have the building assessed, according to New Mexico Administrative Code 1.5.23.8. A current appraisal must be done by a certified appraiser in commercial property, the city must get a report from the property tax division of the state’s tax and revenue department on the property and an environmental assessment must be done. An acquisition “above market value is not permitted,” the code states.
No such documents or requirements were mentioned by city staff or city commissioners.
City Commissioner Merry Jo Fahl said of the purchase: “I can’t understand why the community as a whole is not supporting the police department. Shame on them.”
Fahl may be referring to the March 19 special election in which the people voted down a $4 million bond issue to acquire and renovate a “public safety building” and to pay off loans the city has with the New Mexico Finance Authority. The money to pay off the bond debt was to come from all of the city’s local gross receipts taxes and “state-shared” gross receipts taxes.
It is unknown if the people voted down the $4 million bond issuance because they disapproved of the proposed renovation of the old armory building as a police station. It could have been the secrecy and lack of transparency of the city commission around the financing and building plans. It could have been the lack of transparency or vetting of alternatives, such as other buildings, fixing the current police building or building a new building. It could have been the issue of pledging all of the city’s gross receipts taxes to pay off the debt that put people off. It could have been the people’s desire that the money go instead to fix the water and sewer infrastructure first before acquiring a new police building.
Fahl reduced the issue of whether to acquire a public safety building to support or lack of support of the police.
City Commissioner Ingo Hoeppner reduced the issue to price, claiming at the July 10 meeting that the city commission was doing the people’s will by finding a cheaper option.
Hechler, similarly said the purchase of the PNC building “was an opportunity we couldn’t pass up.”
City Manager Angela Gonzales recognized Hoeppner’s part in the back-room deal, praising him for getting the ball rolling with “an email in March.”
Mayor Pro Tem praised Hechler and Hoeppner and Gonzales for “their hard work.” It was “good team work,” she said, also acknowledging their behind-closed-doors machinations.
It is not surprising that the city commissioners ignored the referendum results and again purchased a police building working behind closed doors: https://sierracountycitizen.org/new-police-building-rammed-down-publics-throat-again-third-time-is-the-charm/
They may have gotten a good price on the PNC building, but it was not done through democratic processes. Some people have expressed approval of the purchase after the fact, making it irrelevant, since it changes nothing about the city commission’s kingly decision. You may approve of the oligarchs’ edict this time, but what about the next time?
How the city commission has decided to pay for the building was another hidden surprise.
It was assumed the $430,000 purchase price and the renovations would come out of a $2 million bond issue, which ordinance the city approved for publication a month ago and which was supposed to go to public hearing July 24. The city commission voted to remove this agenda item.
The $2 million bond is to be purchased by the New Mexico Finance Authority, unlike the $4 million bond, which was to be sold on the open market. The bond debt is to be paid by “state-shared” gross receipts taxes only, according to the ordinance, unlike the $4 million bond, which would have pledge all of the city’s local and state-shared gross receipts.
Hechler said the city is considering borrowing less than $2 million.
The city will not wait for the NMFA bond deal to go through before purchasing the building for $430,000.
In a veiled move, the city commission approved the revenue source for the purchase by approving the 2024-2025 final budget. City Manager Angela Gonzales, in presenting the changes in the final budget from the draft budget, explained that the general fund will pay for $230,000 and the police department’s .25 percent gross receipts tax fund will pay for $200,000 of the purchase price.
Gonzales suggested that the city commission could go ahead with the $2 million bond debt, “and reimburse yourself,” meaning, pay back the general fund and PD GRT fund from the proceeds of the bond. The city commission did not respond to the suggestion.
Hechler mentioned the city has a “30-day due diligence” period, which, I assume, means the city has 30 days before cutting a $430,000 check. The city commission already approved an initial “earnest money” payment of $40,000 at the July 10 city commission meeting.
I’m not sure why a City Commissioner should decide to attack voters whose decision did not agree with her hopes for the construction of a new police building. It is more appropriate for us, the citizens and voters, to shame our elected officials who are supposedly there to serve our interests.
I voted against the police bldg bond only because they promoted it as if the armory would be the location of new dept. Then it came out that they weren’t committed to it and the police bldg had no plan whatsoever.
Get a plan in place and I’ll vote for it
I don’t vote for blank checks for an idea.