Mayor wants 60-day delay on SAD vote

Continued from Page 1

Williams spoke to The SCORE hours after expressing similar sentiments at a morning news conference at City Hall to which this organization was not invited. As such, The SCORE's attempts to reach city councilors for their reaction had limited success.

Messages were left on the city-issued cell phones of all six city councilors by 9:15 p.m. Only councilor Larry Naranjo chose to respond to Williams' proposal, saying from the check-ou line at Albertson's he wanted to proceed with the vote but with conditions similar to those suggested by Williams.



The web site goes on to outline the SAD process this way:

"February - June of 2008. Wilson and Company, Inc. would complete the following: final construction plans; final construction cost estimates; contract documents; agency reviews and approvals; final assessment estimate; and updating of the engineer’s report and property owner database.

"June 9, 2008. The City of Rio Rancho would advertise for bids for the proposed SAD 7 construction. Construction of the District improvements are competitively bid at this time to allow actual contract Unit prices to be used in the calculation of assessments.

"August 13, 2008. Governing Body meeting would consider the adoption of Special Assessment Resolution 4 which would establish the time and place of the Assessment Hearing. Property owners included in the proposed SAD 7 would receive notices via certified mail. Letters would include information regarding the financing (length of payment period and interest rate).

"Letters will also contain information on how those included in the proposed SAD 7 can express concerns or ask questions related to the assessment costs.  Input from property owners would be able to be submitted in writing to the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Rio Rancho by September 10, 2008. Property owners will also be able to submit their comments, objections, or questions at a public Assessment Hearing.

"September 10, 2008. Property owners or other interested persons would be able to verbally submit their comments, objections, or questions at a public Assessment Hearing.

"October 8, 2008. As part of the Governing Body’s regular meeting (6:00 p.m. / Rio Rancho City Hall), a report  prepared by Wilson and Company, Inc. – as part of the public record - would provide written responses and recommended solutions to objections and questions submitted in writing and those submitted as part of the Assessment Hearing. The Governing Body may vote on the adoption of Special Assessment Resolution 5 which would confirm and approve the assessments and could contain modifications resulting from the Assessment Hearing.

"October 22, 2008. At the Governing Body meeting, the adoption of the assessment and bond ordinances would be considered.  The Assessment Ordinance would describe payment of a claim of lien; and provides for a penalty for delinquent payments.  The Bond Ordinance would describe the structure of the bond sales.

"If approved by vote of the Governing Body, SAD 7 will be confirmed and the assessments property owners would pay will be established.  The first assessment payment would be due from property owners to the city three to nine months from this date (April 1, 2009 on the current schedule).

"Notice of assessment for each property and payment would be mailed by the city to property owners. This mailing would include a description of the cash-pay period (payments without interest prior to the start of construction)


Williams recalled his news conference this way:

“I thanked everybody for showing up on Jan. 9. I apologized for not having a big enough venue to handle them, but it was because of Granicus (the system that captures city council meetings for broadcast both on cable television and on the city’s web site.),” he said. “I understand that the economy is in a bad way right now, and I understand the $13,500 cost (per property in the SAD-&) would hurt anybody.

"I stated that I’ve had meetings with our state legislators and I’ve sent correspondence to our federal legislators asking if they’re any funds available. And I reiterated, I can’t tell you how many times, that the actual vote is Oct. 22, 2008. I must have said it a dozen times."

Under the weak-mayor form of government included in the city charter, the mayor cannot stop the proposal and votes only in case of a tie among councilors. In fact, Williams might have more influence on the vote if he is elected to his old District 1 city council seat that he is seeking in the March 4 election.

"As mayor, I don’t vote. I can’t mandate," he said. "I am requesting this of the council."

Part of city council District 1 is in the SAD, and Williams said voters in his district favor he proposal.

"As a councilor for District 1, I took care of my district. Unit 10 is mine. My people came to me, and you don’t hear complaints out of them," he said. "As a matter of fact, they have called me, concerned, that the council’s going to waffle now because of all the heat.

"I advised my people in my district that their (part of the) SAD will go through."

 
Naranajo and Williams seem on the same page as to what they want to do, but disagree on exacly how to get there.

“I’m not certain that I’m in favor of a delay," Naranjo said. “What I am totally in favor of is some kind of a compromise in terms of Unit 17, which seems to be the area that is the biggest problem with the SAD. I would be willing to make a motion that would incorporate some of the items that probably will be recommended by the administration. If they have a particular plan they want to put in place, I don’t see where a delay would necessarily make much difference because this isn’t the vote anyway. The real vote occurs in September.”

Told of Williams’ concerns, Naranjo said, “That I’m in favor of, but that requires a positive vote on moving forward. I do not anticipate nor do I expect anyone to make a motion to delay the vote. I expect that we’re going to vote to continue to move forward, with the conditions being that there be a review of Unit 17 and there will be a scaling back of that to specifically address the mitigation of the actual flood damage. If hey go there, I’m 100 percent in support of that.

“Remember, all I asked people to do was to compromise. They were ‘the highway or my way,’ and that’s just wrong. They’re not going to tell me, ‘No, you’re not going to do this to me because you don’t have the right.’ We do have the right. In fact, we have the responsibility.

“I do not want to be here six years from now if we get the 200-year flood and we did nothing and we knew we could,” Naranjo said. “It’s not a budget issue because the people who pay for it will benefit from it. It’s not a budget issue. It’s not going to affect our general budget, our general appropriations, our gross receipts tax, our property taxes – none of that. We’ve already made investments to improve that area, and we’re making investments in what we’ve done with the SAD so far. Some of the specific items that were being done were being done because it was a bird’s-eye view, a 12,000-foot proposal. Now we’re on the ground looking at stuff. We have at least nine months where we are looking at these costs. 

"I think where we’re at in the process that this is going to work fine. I’m very supportive of what he’s trying to get accomplished, but to get an affirmative from me is a vote to move forward, with conditions.”