The T or C City Commission rescinded ordinance 767 at the Feb. 12 regular meeting, making the March 4 election moot, but leaving up in the air the up-fit of the new police building.
The ordinance stated that the city would borrow up to $2 million from the New Mexico Finance Authority in bond debt. The money to be used to pay back the city’s general fund $230,000 and the police department’s gross receipts tax fund $200,000 spent to purchase the building. The rest would be used to reconfigure the inside and outside of what was the PNC bank building at 210 Main St., as well as the surrounding land.
The city commission purchased the building behind closed doors last summer.
About a month later, the city commission passed the ordinance that would take care of the problem of not having ready money to pay for the reconfiguration of a bank into a police station. The yearly note on the $2-million debt would be paid from the police department’s .25 percent local gross receipts tax, which brings in about $500,000 a year.
Over 250 city voters signed a petition to put the $2-million bond debt to referendum–more than enough to force a special election.
The state law concerning referendums requires that the special election be held within 90 days from the date the city commission passes the special election resolution. But a state election law is in conflict with the referendum law. The election law states that no special election may be held 100 days before or after a general election. That pushed the special election to Feb. 13. The city commission duly passed a special election resolution for that date.
Then City Attorney Jay Rubin failed to prohibit the city commission from changing that date to March 4. Mayor Rolf Hechler said the city would combine its special election with the school district’s special election in order to save money, and needed to push the date out. Hechler even stated, in two separate meetings, that the city could wait until the next general election in November to put the question of the $2-million bond debt on the ballot–with no correction from Rubin.
The city commission approved a second election resolution for Mar. 4, but flubbed it, since it stated the state-shared 1.225-percent gross receipts tax would pay off the debt. They had to republish it again, putting in the correct .25-percent PD GRT.
Then Hechler announced at the Jan. 22 meeting that the school district couldn’t make the Mar. 4 deadline, but the city was not going to change the special election date again. Rubin had finally brought to Hechler’s attention the referendum-law requirement that an election be held within 90 days of the election resolution being passed. Rubin said March 4, despite being 19 days beyond the 90-day requirement, was close enough, since it was motivated by wanting to share expenses with the school district. With that motivation gone, Rubin said the March 4 date should hold.
Then, an unnamed someone noticed another election law that had to be observed, but had not.
New T or C City Manager Gary Whitehead explained, at his first city commission meeting, Feb. 12, that he had spoken to the new County Clerk, Amy Whitehead, his sister-in-law who was elected last November. The city had not given sufficient lead-time notice to the county so that it could send each voter a letter 59 days before the special election that stated the election would be conducted by mail-in ballot and that they would be receiving their ballot about a month before March 4. The secretary of state, the Whiteheads were informed, is a stickler about the 59-day notice letter and insists the law be observed.
Whitehead noted that both the March 4 election date and the lack of the 59-day letter could “be legally challenged.” Whitehead didn’t name resident Ron Fenn, but pointed out that the illegality of the March 4 election date was brought up during public comment earlier in the meeting. Fenn spearheaded the referendum petition.
The two broken laws made the election too much of a risk, especially since it would cost $45,000, of which, Whitehead said, the city already owes $810 for newspaper election notices and about $5,000 for ballots ordered.
The fix?
Since ordinance 767 “is in abeyance until an election determines the outcome,” Rubin said, the ordinance was never passed and never went into effect and therefore “could be rescinded.” The city commission voted unanimously to rescind with no discussion.
The agenda did not include rescission of the March 4 special election resolution and Rubin did not address the legal steps, if any, for cancelling an election.
Whitehead, in a telephone conversation with the Citizen, confirmed that rescission of ordinance 767 made the election moot.
The city did have a plan B, in case the special election resulted in the people voting against the $2-million debt. Hechler said, during the Jan. 22 meeting, that the city had asked its legislators for $500,000 in capital outlay for the up-fit of the PNC building.
Whitehead said the city is fairly confident the $500,000 capital outlay will be granted, since it kept its total requests “fairly modest.”
Besides the $500,000 for the up-fit, the current budget passed last summer put aside $300,000 of PD GRT, of which $200,000 has been spent to purchase the building, the city commission tapping $230,000 from the general fund for the balance.
The first expense from the possible $600,000 up-fit money is an engineering fee. The architectural firm that the city intends to use to design the re-do of the inside and outside and grounds of the building will be about $55,000, Whitehead said. That same firm estimated the inside renovation alone would cost at least $600,000.
Whitehead told the city commission that since the city will only have $600,000 in hand for design and up-fit–if the capital outlay comes through, and since capital outlay won’t come through until next summer, the city may consider borrowing money soon, to speed things along. Whitehead said the city commission should expect another referendum if they do borrow money.
“Why wouldn’t they? They did it twice before,” Whitehead told the Citizen, referring to the 2017 and 2024 referendums in which the people voted down bond debts for a police building.
But unlike past-city managers Angela Gonzales in 2024 and Juan Fuentes in 2017, Whitehead said he would inform the public well in advance and in detail before another financing ordinance is introduced.
If the city doesn’t borrow money, the soonest the police could occupy the building would be a year or so from now, Whitehead said, eking out renovation payments from existing and incoming cash from PD GRT revenues and the possible $500,000 capital outlay grant.
Too bad this city commission and past city commissions didn’t seek consensus from the people for purchasing and equipping a new police building before foisting it on the people, who in turn forced the question to a referendum.
Whitehead did not have an estimate of how much the city spent last year sending Hechler, City Manager Angela Gonzales and Chief of Police Luis Tavizon to New York City last year to lobby bond-rating companies. The city needed a bond rating because the city commission intended to sell bonds on the open market totalling $4.4 million principal to renovate the old armory building into a police building and to pay off old debt. Nor is it known how much the engineering firm was paid in 2017 and 2024 to design the renovation of the old armory building. Whitehead said the special election last year cost $21,699.
By hook or by crook, the city commission got its new police building, but when it will be occupied and what else had to be or will be put aside to do it–such as decent salaries for officers–was also not put to the people.