New Mexico Central

A Tale of Two Mayors

Opinion by Walter R. Kruger

Editor’s Note: Walter R. Kruger is the “nom de plume” of an Edgewood area resident who is also a retired armchair economist.

After reading Mayor Robert Stearley’s letter to the editor in the Independent on July 30, 2008, I’m convinced that Edgewood still suffers from the conflicting leadership of two mayors.

The first, Mayor Robert Stearley, has stated on occasions too numerous to count that there are precious few funds to go around for everything our town wants and needs in the way of “quality of life” improvements and amenities. He has reminded us that sewer, police and roads top the priority list, and has stated that expenses for projects like parks, recreation and entertainment may have to wait for better times.

However, the second mayor, also named Mayor Robert Stearley, has stated that the town doesn’t need to look for additional funding sources, like the imposition of Impact Fees on developers, saying, “I believe that our new residents are already paying their fair share of our costs with the Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) they are paying on their construction.”

Hinting that “Wal-Mart appears to be providing additional revenue”, Mayor Stearley #2 says he has a plan that will pay for the sewer, the police department, the roads, the library AND “provide more things for our youth to do.”, but he’s not telling us what the plan is yet; only that he’s working on it and that Gross Receipts will apparently and magically pay for it all.

State law specifically allows Impact Fees to be levied, “by a municipality or county on new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development.” (New Mexico Statutes Annotated Chapter 5 – Article 8)

The New Mexico State Legislature wrote the law permitting communities to impose Impact Fees because they recognized that areas with high growth would need to fund and construct their infrastructure faster than normal tax revenues would allow them to pay for it. They knew that successful communities would have to stay ahead of the growth curve and recognized that tax revenues are, by their very nature, lagging behind and following the growth curve. Every community experiences shortfalls during times of expansion if they fail to plan for additional funding.

Locating additional funding and sources of revenue for capital improvements is one thing Mayor Stearley #1 has told us he would do with a religious fervor. NMSA 5-8-2-D(2) states that an allowable use Impact Fees is the construction of: “roadway facilities located within the service area, including roads, bridges, bike and pedestrian trails, bus bays, rights of way, traffic signals, landscaping and any local components of state and federal highways.”

So even though, by taking advantage of Impact Fees, the town could get a boost in the pocketbook for funding the construction of these roadways, paths and trails even when they are part of state or federal systems, Mayor Stearley #2 argues, “The road work paid for by the State should not be included in the costs eligible for impact fees (in my opinion).”

Mayor Stearley #1, however, has reassured us that he would leave no stone unturned in the search for funding for the construction and operation of the sewer. The construction of a sewer system for the use of the developed area is another possible use of Impact Fees. NMSA 5-8-2-D(1) defines “water supply, treatment and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage and flood control facilities” as allowable capital improvements.

But Mayor Stearley #2 disagrees, saying, “We did not build it (the sewer) because of our growth. We built it to protect the water aquifer and to encourage economic development. The State Statue (sic) states that “impact fees shall not be imposed or used to pay for…economic development and employment growth…”. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to include it in the impact fees.”

Mayor Stearley #1 has reminded us of the extra measures he’s gone through to secure funding for the sewer, and his own website states, “As Mayor, Bob went to Congress in Washington D.C. and brought home $1,000,000 for our sewer.” (http://www.stearley4mayor.com)

But Mayor Stearley #2 apparently feels we should shun the assistance of outside grants and fundings, saying, “In my opinion, a commitment by the town to complete the construction should be in the form of a seven year budget which shows the ability of the Town to build the project, or purchase the equipment, even without the assistance of the State legislature, or of the United States Congress.”

Since Impact Fees don’t affect current residents, their biggest opposition usually comes from within the development community. Some developers would prefer that funding for infrastructure in their developments be spread out over a wider tax base, such as the revenues available from Gross Receipts Taxes. Therefore some might infer that Mayor Stearley is siding with development interests in campaigning against such fees. They might even point out that Mayor Stearley, with his wife, are part of the real estate and development community.

But others feel that new development interests should shoulder their own costs through development fees and not through robbing the Gross Receipts or General funds. At least one of the Mayors Stearley seems to agree, saying, “I will do everything in my power to ensure that the current taxpayers do not subsidize the development of Campbell Ranch.” (Mountainview Telegraph February 14, 2008)

So, what insidious natural law or scientific principle could explain our Two Mayor System where town government can argue against and side with any issue at the same moment? I believe the culprit is the New Mexico Highway Department.

Evidence may exist that a mid-level design engineer cut the blue prints on the plans for the reconstruction of Route 66 through downtown Edgewood, inadvertently giving the paper a half twist before re-taping the two pieces back together. The result was the notorious “Moibus Strip” effect which was faithfully recreated by unwitting highway construction crews and now, anyone driving Edgewood’s main drag can simultaneously hold, believe and expound viewpoints from either side of the road.

It is the only anomaly in the universe that can explain the ill phrased logic of Stearley’s statement: “The Town of Edgewood does not currently provide sewer service. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate the cost of continuing to provide that nonservice as the town continues to grow.” Is this real evidence of “Town Planning”?

It was Alan Lakein, a well-known expert on personal time management, who first said, “By failing to plan, you are planning to fail.” By extension, in failing to have a plan that stays ahead of Edgewood’s growth curve, Edgewood is doomed to hear the sucking sound of it’s General Fund being drained while perpetually having to react to the ever increasing demands of growth. In light of having a mayor who seemingly contradicts himself at every turn, It then becomes more important for the Edgewood Town Council to take a substantiative leadership role in developing a plan that not only anticipates, but funds beforehand the inevitable growth our area is experiencing.

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, by John Weckerle and is filed under "Edgewood ". You can leave a response here, or send a Trackback from your own site.