Op-ed
Why you should
vote yes
on Tuesday
When we think of the University of New Mexico's plan to establish a campus in Rio Rancho, we can’t help but remember a young lady who graduated from Rio Rancho High School a couple of years ago. She walked out of RRHS with her diploma -- and 50 college-level credits earned through dual enrollment.
Now, not every student is quite this ambitious, but even for those who aren’t dual enrollment is a great deal. Students take college-level courses from institutions like the UNM or Central New Mexico Community College (CNM). If they pass the class, they get college credit. That’s one less course they have to take -- and they or their parents have to pay for -- in college.
Even without tuition -- the lottery scholarship covers that for many students -- books, fees, transportation, food, and lodging are expensive. Lop off a semester or a year of those costs, and that’s a significant cost savings. For some students, it could mean the difference between being able to afford college or not.
The proximity of a UNM Rio Rancho campus would provide even greater access to dual enrollment classes and encourage students to consider enrolling in college -- even students who may never have thought of themselves as “college material.”
Then there are the reports of students who start at UNM but drop out before they earn a degree. It’s not that they can’t do the work, or don’t like college. That hour-long commute to and from Rio Rancho, in time and gas money, is too much for them on top of jobs and all their other responsibilities. What a benefit it would be to our community if those students could stay in school and graduate.
And think of all the companies considering locating in Rio Rancho that might be swayed by that pool of highly-qualified graduates. The estimate is that every dollar Rio Rancho residents invest in higher education will return six dollars in economic growth to our community.
When we think about a UNM campus in Rio Rancho we think about our teachers and staff members, and the opportunities they would have to continue their education and improve their qualifications. Having a campus close by would make it easier for teachers to take classes and earn higher degrees -- and the more they know, the more they can teach our children.
Finally, we think about the power of partnerships. We have the chance here in Rio Rancho to build a pre-kindergarten through college educational system that would turn most cities in the nation green with envy. UNM and CNM would provide support, and even teach courses, for children in Rio Rancho public schools. Students would graduate from our high schools and go straight to UNM, or could go to CNM and after two years transfer to four-year programs at UNM.
And while we’ve talked a lot about young people, students come in all ages. UNM would serve all of our citizens, from children to senior citizens.
To make this dream a reality, UNM is asking Rio Rancho residents to approve a ¼ percent gross receipts tax increase. That’s just a nickel for every $20 you spend in our community. The $20 million this tax should raise over its 20-year lifetime will pay for the infrastructure UNM needs to build the campus. Like dual enrollment, it’s a good deal.
Rio Rancho residents have always recognized the value of a quality education system, and the addition of a four-year university will make our educational offerings second to none in the state. We hope that regardless of your opinion on the proposed tax that you will take the time to vote on March 4.
Rio Rancho Public School
Board of Education
Lisa Cour, President
Martin Scharfglass, Vice-President
Margaret Terry, Secretary
Divyesh N. Patel, Member
Don Schlichte, Member
V. Sue Cleveland, Superintendent
Rio Rancho Public Schools
Op-ed
Why you should
vote no
on Tuesday
On Feb. 23, University of New Mexico President David Schmidly and a member of his staff met with candidates for office in Rio Rancho to try to convince us that the sales tax increase on the ballot of March 4 is needed and valid.
Let's look at today's real world.
•Our country is facing a dramatic downturn in many areas, including value of homes. Reassessments on homes are rising at 20 to 40 percent (and higher) rates in Rio Rancho, with no opportunity to recoup in sales value.
•The SAD-7 issue will cost thousands of homeowners in Rio Rancho $13,000 or more in property taxes, if approved as written.
•Much of Rio Rancho was just talked into another tax for the more than six-year promise of a Central New Mexico (formerly TVI) campus. Now, with another two-year delay, it has been promised again while CNM collects the added taxes.
•Gov. Bill Richardson is proposing yet another tax on the ballot this fall to support his pet train project, which is already in debt at leas $5 million per year and is projected to be in debt twice that much with the addition of a route to Santa Fe. That tax is to be carried by only four counties, Sandoval being one.
Now, with President Schmidly's encouragement, the Rio Rancho city council, in its infinite wisdom, has placed the proposed increase on the retail sales tax on the ballot for voter approval.
This happened even though the council knows full well one of the city's biggest problems is retail sales growth. What better way to further reduce retail sales and continue to drive citizens down the hill than to ask them to increase the sales tax on all they buy in Rio Rancho?
I always thought a tax on a tax on a tax was constitutionally illegal. President Schmidly lives in a house paid for with incentives to his salary from UNM, so he can't possibly understand what it's like to try to maintain a home mortgage on fixed incomes and lowering values with rising taxes all around us.
As recently as late last year, President Schmidly was quoted as saying he would approach the state legislature to increase the funds coming from our state wide tax base. This was to support what I call his "University City" in downtown Albuquerque with hotels, high rises, restaurants and other businesses further adding to all our state wide tax assessments.
Recently two Ivy League schools stated they would open their endowment funds to assist students needing financial aid in their schools. Harvard and Yale noted $3.2 bllion and $2.1 billion in their respective endowments,
I asked President Schmidly directly how much money was in the UNM endowments and how much is earned from UNM properties throughout the state. Why doesn't he consider contributing some of that for the Rio Rancho campus, instead of pushing for more taxation?
I received no answers.
Why is Rio Rancho being singled out to push this issue? Could it be because we are now the third largest city in the state and have a big tax base to tap again and again?
My family holds 12 degrees from a half dozen very prestigious universities, four being advanced degrees. Every one of these degrees was earned by the sweat of our collective brows. Obviously I am not against higher education, but I am against continued, flagrant, multiple taxation on the already overburdened citizens of Rio Rancho.
With all the above I will never encourage any citizen to vote for such a duplicate/triplicate/quadruple tax for any reason, and I will personally vote no to it myself.
Alonzo F. Clayton
City Council Candidate
District 6
Editorial
Vote 'yes' on quarter-cent gross receipts tax proposal
I’m not sure how much mayoral candidate Bill White and I agree on. But we have come to the same conclusion on the UNM quarter-cent gross receipts tax issue – we started out against it, and now we are for it.
In politics, changing your mind can be a dangerous thing. Just ask John Kerry. But in the case of the UNM tax, a closer examination of the issue makes it make more sense.
Nobody likes to pay more taxes. As a non-property owner it’s easy for me to pontificate in favor of other tax increases based on home ownership. But this time, as a 45-year-old single man with no kids, it’s going to come out of my pocket, too.
Would I prefer the state pony up more money to pay for the infrastructure needs of UNM in specific and he developing downtown area in general? You bet. But so would those voters in Taos, Gallup and Valencia County, to name three, who decided higher education was an important enough element that they are supporting UNM either by a mill levy increase or gross receipts tax and, in the case of Taos, both ways.
Besides, where does the state get its money from? The people's pockets, that's where. The question is who should bear the burden, just property owners or everybody? And hopefully some money will come from people who live outside Rio Rancho who spend their money here.
Do I wish the proposal was called what it is – a tax to support UNM – instead of being called a higher education initiative? Yes, I’m in favor of truth in labeling. Whether UNM will be able to deliver on its promise to partner with New Mexico State, New Mexico Highlands and others remains to be seen, and some I know in higher education fear are upset UNM gets the opportunity to tap the taxpayer while their institution does not.
Still, it’s a presence that Rio Rancho needs. It's another step in the recognition that we are are a grown up city.
Do I wish that UNM paid more of the costs itself, especially since its endowment fund has increased from about $250 million to $400 million in the past two years? Of course I wish the money came from somebody else, but that isn't going to happen (Bill Gates quit taking my calls years ago.)
The interest off that increasing fund is being used to fund more scholarships, and dipping into the principal would the defeat the purpose of endowments as determined by the UNM Board of Regents. And some of that money will go/is going to pay for scholarships for students who will/do attend UNM in Rio Rancho.
Could there be a better time to raise taxes? Sure. There is no good time to raise taxes, and this year many in Rio Rancho have been or may be hit by a combination of increased property taxes, SAD-7, the CNM proposal and general economic fears at the national and state levels.
And while I understand the urge to say enough is enough, the bottom line is this: It’s only a quarter of a cent. And even that won’ be applied to many things you buy in everyday life.
It won’t be applied to the cost of food or prescription medicine, since gross receipts taxes were taken off most things at the grocery store a couple of years ago by the state. It won’t be on a new car, since the tax there is a straight excise tax on automobiles that is separate from the GRT.
Think of the positives. There will be less traffic, accidents and pollution generated by less-experienced drivers commuting to the UNM main campus in Albuquerque. It will be somewhat of an economic engine to attract bookstores, coffee shops and dining areas to the new campus area, though I must admit my college eating experience was largely spent at fast food restaurants and neighborhood bars, where I probably learned more about everyday life than I did in a classroom.
But the biggest reason to support the tax is to get infrastructure in place to help support other business that will be coming to the area. It’s not like UNM will be simply running lines from their new buildings to tap into existing water and sewer lines. What the city has installed so far is barely enough to support the existing City Hall and Star Center, and funding to expand that capability seems a long way off. Connecting a new UNM campus to the rest of the city will give others in between a chance to tap in as well.
If you’re still unsure which way to vote, do this. Go to your piggy bank, dresser, purse or wherever you keep the change you accumulate every day. Count it, and multiply by 400 to get a new total that represents how much you would have had to spend to make your change equal to the UNM tax.
I just did. My change jar has $11.78 in it. Multiply it out, and I would have had to spend $4,712 to generate $11.78 cents in taxes for UNM under the proposed quarter-cent rate.
Is it worth the change on your dresser to bring higher education to Rio Rancho? Less traffic (and pollution), a smarter workforce that should entice better-paying jobs and generate even more gross receipts income in the future, and infrastructure to jump start the stall downtown growth are among the many reasons to vote yes on the issue on Tuesday.
Eric Maddy
Publisher, The SCORE
