City resolution asks county to delay vote on tax

Commissioners to consider increase May 30 but councilors, mayor want say in decision

Mayor Javier Gonzales and city councilors Monday formally asked the Santa Fe County Commission to delay a vote on gross receipts tax increases until after a June 15 planning meeting of councilors and commissioners.

But in a letter last week to Gonzales and councilors, commission Vice Chairwoman Anna Hansen said councilors concerned about the possible tax hikes can express their views like anyone else at a commission public hearing May 30.

“This would help ensure that the Board of County Commissioners is properly informed and can make the best decision with all pertinent information,” Hansen wrote.

The commission could vote on the tax increases at the May 30 meeting, and there is support among commissioners for doing just that.

The proposed countywide gross receipts tax hikes, which would generate about $6.9 million annually, would levy an additional 19 cents in taxes on every $100 in sales.

The tax rate in Santa Fe would increase from 8.3125 percent to 8.5 percent, and the rate would go from 7 percent to 7.1875 percent in the unincorporated areas of the county. According to the county, some of the new tax money would be used for public safety and to enhance behavioral health care services.

In her letter to councilors, Hansen justified the proposed tax hikes and noted that a majority of voters supported an advisory question on the November 2016 general election ballot asking whether they supported a gross receipts tax increase for behaviorial health services.

“The question has helped the Board of County Commissioners gauge community support for a tax increase,” Hansen told The New Mexican.

City Councilor Joseph Maestas was the lead sponsor of the resolution asking county commissioners to delay action on the proposed tax increases pending the outcome of a previously scheduled June 15 meeting between councilors and commissioners concerning a regional plan.

Maestas said he respects the county process. “But one of the decisions that will come of that process impacts the entire city and the decision itself is contrary to the planned joint meeting that they requested,” he said. “I’m not challenging their process. I’m just challenging … that particular decision to impose a countywide tax before we meet.”

The resolution, which was approved 8-0, was co-sponsored by

Councilors Carmichael Dominguez, Signe Lindell and Renee Villarreal, who was absent for the vote Monday.

In March, county commissioners invited city councilors to the joint meeting in June.

“This same exact scenario played out in 2015 where all of a sudden, a countywide … gross receipts tax increase was being discussed at county budget hearings,” Maestas said in an interview.

“Staff had no idea what was going on. The county had in the same manner invited us to have a joint meeting, but the meeting was planned after their scheduled vote on the tax increase. If I were Yogi Berra, I would say it’s déjà vu all over again.”

In the latest invitation, the county invited the city to discuss and develop a joint strategic planning process and wrote that such meetings “would enable a quorum of our respective governing bodies to collaborate in areas of mutual interest or concern.”

Maestas said a proposed tax increase is an area of mutual concern.

“It’s about cooperation between two governments. It’s about ensuring that we’re not duplicating services at a time where the public cares very deeply about decisions that we make, particularly decisions that hurt them in their pocketbooks,” he said.

During Monday’s meeting of the City Council, the mayor said he had some initial concerns about Maestas’ resolution. But he said the May 2 vote to reject his proposal to tax sugary beverages to pay for preschool programs factored into him seeing the resolution differently.

“Certainly, what I heard during this recent election from many people about the fact that the issue of taxation and the burden of having to cover more and more costs is just something that clearly our community is not wanting to do right now,” Gonzales said. “I do think we are in positions of elected office to be able to represent our constituency when appropriate, and I think [Maestas’] resolution does offer our ability to use our voices.”