Dolores Connor
This column is in response to the Aug. 6 commentary by Michael Swickard, “Lacking a trustworthy local leadership,” and comments posted at the end of that column.
There has been a lot of conversation about Sonoma Ranch Boulevard as it travels north from U.S. Highway 70. It has even been linked to “inexperience” on the part of the city council. Please note there is so much information about this project that the inexperience comes from those who want to push it through at any cost. We must first look at the process.
In January, a resolution was passed by the council, Resolution 10-200, which declared an intent to bring a Special Assessment District (SAD) in accordance with Sections 3-33-1 through 3-33-43, NMSA 1978. The next step was a preliminary hearing on the SAD. There were several weeks of notice prior to the April 5 meeting to alert the public of the proposal.
After three hours of presentation and debate there was not a consensus – I repeat consensus, not a vote – to the offer being presented (a vote cannot take place at a hearing).
At this time, the council expressed to the developer their requests and inquiry as to how this would come together. I added that the road should be complete from U.S. 70 north to DragonFly Road, a three mile stretch. The proposal was only two miles long, to Arroyo Road, and did not include the property that would be in highest demand, which is closest to the golf course. It would make sense to finish out the road and include the properties that would be developed sooner than those further away from the course.
After the meeting there were those who told me I had no right to ask for the additional roadway because it was not part of the initial proposal, but Section 3-33-1(c), part of Resolution 10-200, states that “the improvement district shall include, for the purpose of assessment or imposition of an improvement district property tax ALL (emphasis mine) the property that the governing body determines is benefitted by the improvement, including property lying without the municipality creating the improvement district if such property abuts or is served by improvements.”
The council, being the governing body, has the obligation to include properties that will benefit the SAD, and clearly the roadway should be completed to the farthest north roadway, which is Dragonfly. At the April 5 meeting the SAD was not dead, it just needed some response from the developer as to whether he was willing to continue or to drop it.
A complicated process
Where were all the people that have contacted us after the fact? Why did they not show at the April 5 meeting or send notices of support prior to the meeting?
The developer never came back to the staff or council to keep the process in motion. If he had some compromise to the requests of the council, the process would have then moved back into resolutions and a preliminary hearing to get consensus, and from there a formation resolution, which would lead to a formal bid process, council award of the bid, an assessment ordinance and a negotiated loan agreement.
This is what has everyone confused: The preliminary hearing was just that – preliminary. The comments that the developer paid for thousands of hours of review by bond counsel and New Mexico Finance Authority are false. There is no cost to either of these reviews until the loan is actually made and closed. The same resolution 10-200 also states “no costs or expenses related to such efforts will be paid or reimbursed by the City until financing for the District is obtained.”
The SAD is regulated by statutory legislative requirements, making this a process that is greatly scrutinized. The thought by many that this complicated process would take place in a three-month period from beginning to end was naive. It would never have been in place by the time the elementary school opened, and to have included the school was inconceivable on the part of everyone.
Doing it correctly the first time
What happens now? I have met with the developer to look at the entire three miles of roadway to include turning lanes, bike paths, multipurpose paths, drainage, utilities, etc. It can still be done, but let’s do it correctly the first time. It is easier and less costly to change plans on paper than to pour the asphalt and find you have missing items to the plans.
Let’s look at this as a possible project; it’s just that at the April 5 meeting I was calling out “FORE” so we would step back and look at was coming at us.
Connor is the Las Cruces city councilor representing District 2.