Council members skeptical of $60M bond idea

Even those who are supportive don’t think it can make November ballot

A possible general obligation bond election in which Santa Fe voters would be asked to authorize $60 million for roadwork and public safety this November met with a mixed reception Tuesday night at its first city legislative committee.

Some city councilors described the idea, which Mayor Alan Webber floated earlier this month, as half-baked, a surefire failure at the polls, even a possible “black eye” for a city government already facing a trust deficit with the public on matters of money management.

Others, meanwhile, said city infrastructure needs are so desperate as to make a bond issue essential and well worth the effort to persuade city voters, who might face a property tax increase if most approved such a proposal.

Councilors on the Public Works Committee were in agreement, however, in expressing concern about the tight timeline to secure a place on the November general election ballot. Councilors would need to approve and forward an election proclamation to Santa Fe County by mid-June, city finance staff said.

“If we were serious about this, it would have started a year ago,” said Councilor Mike Harris. “Without the tremendous amount of work you need to bring forward a $60 million bond program, I believe it’ll go down in flames. And it’ll be another black eye for the city of Santa Fe.”

Councilors unanimously postponed the item, saying they need clarity on possible projects the bond issue would fund and how city staff determines these priorities.

The $60 million proposal would include asking voters whether to authorize up to $40 million to address streets, up to $15 million to construct a new fire training facility and up to $5 million to build a new fire station to serve an area to be annexed from the county. Brad Fluetsch, the city financial planning and reporting officer, said the proposal had been percolating within the finance department as a way to begin addressing some $250 million in deferred maintenance needs.

“We are still in a very abnormal interest rate environment, where it’s been manipulated by the Federal Reserve, the rest of the global banks,” said Fluetsch. “We’ve got to take advantage of this.”

Both Fluetsch and the mayor, the proposal’s primary sponsor, have said the uses and dollar amounts of the general obligation bonds would be subject to change as the council evaluates the merits.

But in its first brush with councilors, at least, the proposal appeared largely dead on arrival.

“We’re kind of ‘back-asswards,’ ” said Harris. “We’re only doing this because the financial guys are putting a shine on it.”

Councilor Roman “Tiger” Abeyta echoed Harris, saying he would expect city voters to shoot down any bond questions absent detailed explanations of where the money would be spent and assurances it would ultimately be used as planned — on top of the legwork he said the city needs to undertake to restore public trust after unflattering external reviews of financial practices.

“I understand the intentions” of the proposal, Abeyta said. “But I think we have a lot of work to do.”

Webber introduced the bond proposals — the $60 million general obligation election and another $13 million in gross receipts tax improvement bonds that would not require voter approval — earlier this month. Shortly afterward, he described the former proposal as a “placeholder,” intended to simply facilitate discussion among councilors about the efficacy of such an election.

Several councilors subsequently said they were caught off guard. On Tuesday night, the timing of the election proposition again came under scrutiny as councilors wondered about how and when priorities would be determined, in addition to gauging possible community support.

Fluetsch said the city was still trying to determine how late into the year officials might be able to yank such an election from the county ballot if the proposal was to make it there at all.

“I’m a little bit wondering how in the heck this is really all going to come together,” Councilor JoAnne Vigil Coppler said. “There’s no way all these things … this is a lot of stuff. Are we just going to pare all this down into one meeting and decide what the priorities are going to be in order to move this forward? I don’t even understand how this is possible.

“What I see is this pond getting muddier and muddier and it makes me think this is going to go absolutely nowhere,” she added.

“Everyone agrees there’s a need,” Abeyta said. “But the question is: Just because we give you the money, is that need going to be met, and are you going to do what you said you would do with it?”

“I feel like we’re in a place where we don’t have information, and people are going to question why we are doing it now,” Councilor Renee Villarreal said. “And rightfully so.”

Councilor Peter Ives, a cosponsor with Webber, said that although the timing presents an obstacle, the discussion about how to begin chipping away at the city’s infrastructure needs is a worthy one.

“I don’t think we restore trust by doing nothing,” Ives said.

Councilors also postponed consideration of the $13 million in gross receipts tax improvement revenue bonds. According to the proposed ordinance, those funds would be put toward maintenance of city facilities.

“I think we need to look at this bond program first,” Harris said, referring to the gross receipts tax issue. “We need to look at what’s prudent, what’s rational, what’s defensible.”

The city Finance Committee is expected to take up both items next week.