THE HAWLEY ALTERNATIVE REPORT

BY GORDON HAWLEY

MAY 7 2008

[This memo is written as a summary of the author’s notes taken at all open meetings of the six Mayor’s Transition Teams. Another written report (Citizen Comments on Transition Team Reports, dated April 25, 2008) signed by three citizens, all of whom attended most or all the meetings (Kasaoka, Cooper, and Hawley), has been prepared and distributed. However, this memo is the product of one author, who takes sole responsibility for its contents.]

One of the major issues in the recent governing body election was the perceived lack of timely and meaningful communications between just plain citizens and elected officials and/or others in positions of power who make major decisions concerning issues which shape our present and future city environment. During the meetings it became clear that communications between various city departments should also be improved.

Sometime before the start of the 2008 election campaigns, through newspaper reports and letters to the editor, it started to become clear that the City would, or had, suffered a substantial loss of revenue, largely due to a slowdown in local housing starts. Also, it was abundantly clear that the larger economy was rapidly approaching a recession, or worse, and consumer confidence levels might also affect people’s desire to look more closely at the real need for increased taxes, bond issues, and overall City planning.

The coincidence of having a new mayor and a relatively austere new financial situation, certainly near term or perhaps long term, should provide a brief hiatus of flat budgets and slower residential growth. The next year and a half of this mayor’s term might offer enough time for diligent planning and perhaps a new vision of a city that will have to accept constraints not faced (but should have been) for the last couple of decades.

The decision by the mayor to have Transition Teams and Community Conversations to examine various aspects of our city was indeed a wise one, for it could be the start of the communication process that citizens have said they want. It is regrettable that so few citizens availed themselves of the great amount of important information that was presented at the meetings, which were heavily advertised. In general, less than five people who were just interested citizens attended most meetings, which is a pitiful showing regardless of perhaps inconvenient schedules. There seems to be an apathy in the citizenry that allows 5 to 10 percent of voters to determine our city’s present and future, and it is a challenge of current city government to encourage the citizenry to respond to outreach attempts. If the citizens will not take interest in, and responsibility for, the current and future status of the city, then others will fill the vacuum and we may not be happy with the results.

BACKGROUND: Of the six Transition Teams, four generated the most interest for this observer. They were Fiscal/Financial; Administrative, Infrastructure, and Public Safety. The other two, Business/Economic Development and Development, appear to represent groups that might be less visible to the citizenry.

The actions and interactions with city government of these latter two groups may well be more important than the other four groups combined. Some teams seemed to have narrowly focused interests which could perhaps be broadened in the interest of a wider city overview.

All of the groups started their meetings with an agenda item to identify areas that are working well. Largely the same items were mentioned in most meetings, with perhaps a few items pertinent only to the team involved. Some “working well” items seemed to carry a caveat that partially negated the feeling that the item really is working well. The teams’ final lists of such items that will be submitted to the mayor will probably be complete and sufficient.

In some meetings, the amount of time dedicated to identifying “items working well” was dwarfed by the time spent on identifying “areas of improvement.” Again, each team’s final prioritized lists are not available at this time, but copious notes were taken that provide an overview of problem areas. It is not the intent of this paper to prioritize lists but to examine areas of interest to the author. All of these areas were mentioned to a more or lesser degree in the various meetings.

2. POPULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The Administration Team provided a statement that “Five essentials that every resident wants are water, sewer, police, fire/rescue, streets - if these are (adequately) provided the rest will fall in place.” In addition, Kindergarten-through-12^th grade schools are probably also considered essential, making a total of six. Easy-in and easy-out access to major transportation corridors make a seventh essential.

Team members variously stated there are too few multiple-lane streets; not enough major arterials to provide adequate entrance/exit traffic in the city; street maintenance is poor; there are too few police and fire rescue stations and staffing; water is perhaps a limiting factor in the city’s future; and it has recently been stated in the papers that the Rio Rancho School District is in a “crisis” due to funding problems.

What is driving all these infrastructure problems? They are just symptoms of one overriding factor: Rio Rancho has rapidly overpopulated itself without making sure that the seven essentials were properly provided, and probably faces a decidedly uphill battle to ever catch up. Growth was mentioned in some of the meetings, but mostly in abstract terms, and population and population growth were not identified as the root cause of infrastructure shortages. (It was just usually stated that there was a lack of, to varying degree, some or all of the seven essentials.)

The already-planned-and-approved subdivisions and/or developments at this point in time will contribute another 30,000 residences. This figure was stated in one of the meetings, which by the same reckoning as before, will add some 84,000 persons, making a total population of 162,000. (It should be noted that several tens of thousands of residents will be added as the Quail Ranch annexation is populated. It is not considered here because it presently is being served by another utility.) Why pause at that number? It is because before that number is reached Rio Rancho’s water use will exceed its State Engineer’s official-water-pumping permit, or exceed its ability to pay for the required water rights purchases. If City planners continue to approve new subdivisions and letters-of-water availability, it is in the face of this limit. Extensive water conservation measures will help, but there is a probably a limit on how little water, either voluntarily or under imposed restrictions, a household is permitted before people really complain.

The upper limit of State permitted water pumping by Rio Rancho is 24,020.14 acre-feet. All the water pumped and disbursed by the Public Works Department or its contractors belongs to the citizens, and is, or should be, used for their benefit. In 2006, the official population was 71,607, and the official amount of water pumped was 12,105 acre-feet. This corresponds to a daily water use per person, or per capita, of 151 gallons (sometimes just stated as 151 gpppd). (The number for 2007 population is not yet official.) As stated previously, approved future residential additions will bring the total population to 162,000. How much water, at the current use of 151 gpppd, will be required? Simply put, it is 25,141 acre-feet. Strangely enough, that number is, within a small percentage, the maximum that Rio Rancho is permitted to pump without some concessions by the State Engineer (don’t bet on it) or on finding some other source of water not yet determined.

As bad as the preceding discussion might seem, there is more. According to statements made in the meetings by a financial representative, but not confirmed by the utilities representative, the City, by agreement with the State Engineer, will have to buy consumptive water rights in the amount of 579 acre-feet every 5 years for 55 years, and at the present time an acre-foot is selling for $30,000. That amounts to $191,000,000 if the average price per acre-foot remains the same, which is unlikely. How will the City fund these payments? Probably by bond issues affecting current residents to provide water for future residents. An alternative would be for sub-division developers to supply the necessary consumptive water rights to the city. Otherwise, utility impact fees for new residences should actually include everything the structure will cost the city.

What happens when the yearly use dangerously approaches the pumping permit level? Will residential growth have to stop? Will the city have to invoke the dreaded “M” word (moratorium) on future housing developments?

Some believe that the Sandoval County sponsored desalination project will alleviate some of the water concerns, but it is not clear how, when, and if it will be successfully completed and how much it will cost. A bigger unknown is who will pay for it. One County Commissioner stated “the federal government.” Although a measure to give the State Engineer control of waters regardless of depth did not pass last year, it is likely that it will be revisited soon. If such a measure passes, the issue will be further complicated.

RECOMMENDATIONS: A new water-population management plan should be done immediately. It needs to address further subdivision approvals in the near term (for the next five years) with existing (not contemplated) water limits and water and wastewater infrastructure. It should be done by the proper City departments in-house and should be no thicker than about 1/2 inch and be available in three months.

Evidently it permitted or encouraged it. If not for the Rio Rancho and nationwide housing problems, no telling what the number of housing starts would be by 2010. But of course such exponential growth is not sustainable, even on a short-time basis, as reflected in the decline in number of housing starts in 2006 (2049) and 2007 (1046).

If the population growth is generated by 3000 housing starts per year, the population growth will be about 10,000 persons-per-year. A preceding discussion forecasts Rio Rancho can add about another 80,000 residents before the city’s water pumping permit is exceeded. Thus, it will take 10 years or less to double our population. However, if the number of housing starts remains about the 2007 level (1046 starts) the doubling time will be about 25 years. Straight-line growth is preferable to exponential growth, which is sustainable for only a short time, and the slope of straight-line growth should be fairly low. Why? Because if we can’t keep up with the seven essential infrastructure needs at the present, how can we expect to gain on the problem at a high or excessive growth rate?

What does a doubling of population mean in terms of infrastructure? If we continue to build in “nodes” the future will continue to look like the past. Since we are already pretty far behind, and to maintain the perception that we are an exceptional city, we will perhaps need to: (The existence of Quail Ranch is noted, but it is not known how it will affect these items.)

more than double our road and street infrastructure because we are so far behind at the present

more than double the accessibility to I-25 and/or I-40 to minimize times and gasoline use for those who commute out of and into Rio Rancho. Again, we are behind—as we have always been

more than double the size of the Public Safety and Fire and Rescue departments in personnel, stations, and all associated equipment

double the water and waste-water infrastructure, meaning new wells, water-treatment plants, and water and waste-water lines

double the number of schools

double the number of libraries

increase the number of parks and recreation centers and facilities

double or triple the number of senior centers

add another major post office and some smaller mail facilities

devise a new public-transportation scheme to help those avoiding high gasoline prices

soon create a new landfill or access to a remote landfill

build a public golf course

provide sufficient electricity and natural gas

increase SSCAFCA’s activities, as deemed necessary

double the size of city staff to take care of all the current and added responsibilities

be cognizant of whatever infrastructure or other demands will be created by the thousands of students who will be attending the two new institutions of higher learning

probably no more Santa Ana Star Centers at city expense

The city, because of the above, faces a major problem. How can it progressively fund all these infrastructure needs as it grows? Historically, many of the needs would be partially funded by the very cause of their growth, i.e., gross-receipts taxes on new home starts. This puts the city in a Catch-22 situation. Under present circumstances, the more homes we start increases our yearly gross-receipts revenue, but the faster we fall behind in infrastructure. The rate of growth should be somehow balanced with rate of provision of infrastructure.

At one of the meetings, a financial representative from the State said Rio Rancho could need about $500,000,000 to complete its Capital Improvement Plan. That number is probably worth thinking about. The bulleted items above certainly may be considerably more costly than that.

5. STREETS, ROADS, AND HIGHWAYS: AN EVER-GROWING PROBLEM: The Infrastructure Team considered this a very important problem in Rio Rancho life. In truth, Rio Rancho has historically been in a transportation semi-crisis. Rapid population growth has only exacerbated the problem.

There are probably about 60,000 vehicles today in Rio Rancho. That number could reach 120,000 if the population doubles. The number of miles these vehicles travel might be reduced considerably if gas reaches $5 a gallon.

According to a handout by a Public Works Department representative at one of the Infrastructure Team meetings, the following is a brief overview of transportation-improvement requirements for FY 2009-2014, or about 5 years:

Some 40 planned, phased, or new projects were listed, with a total cost of $133,983,196. The budget request for 2009 was $18,866,405. However, 2009 funding available was listed as $482,106. So much for transportation improvement.

Included in the above projects were 7 projects also listed as being in the TIP/STIP Transportation Improvement Program. Of these, 3 relate to roads leading in and out of the city: Southern Blvd., Unser Blvd., and Paseo del Vulcan. (The Infrastructure Team thought widening Hwy 528 should have been included as a very important project.) These and the other 3 items have an unfunded amount of $42,518,571 which is included in the $133,983,196 mentioned above. It is interesting to note that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Preferred Scenario (see Map 5.11) lists the following as “Gateways,” or streets leading directly in or out of the city:

Southern Blvd. to the west

Unser Blvd. to the north (Hwy 550) and south

Paseo del Volcan to Hwy 550

Golf Course Road to the south

Hwy 528 to Hwy 448 to the south

Hwy 528 to the north and south

Some of these streets have been completed to ease the problems of entering and leaving the city. However, the ability to avoid rush-hour traffic both in and out is being steadily and rapidly degraded. The reason it is being degraded is that with increasing population, the ability to feed the incoming-outgoing traffic outside the boundaries of the city to major roads is not increasing commensurately. The major transportation corridors of Hwy 550 to I-25, Hwy 528 to I-25, Paseo del Norte to I-25, and Hwy 528 to Coors to Alameda/Montano to I-25 and/or I-40 have now, and will become, increasingly major regional transportation bottlenecks.

Regardless of what Rio Rancho is able to do internally, the solution of regional transportation issues will determine the city’s ability to operate in as good or better transportation climate than is now current.

Not really considered was the need for public transportation. With gasoline prices perhaps reaching $5, $6 or more a gallon, such a system might for the first time be a viable and required part of the infrastructure.

DIGRESSION: WHAT KIND OF CITY ARE WE? Rio Rancho has probably always been called a “bedroom community,” and not without reason.

That term is not used so widely these days, but it is probably increasingly true. The numerical extent of being so is important. The number of people leaving the city for jobs is one thing, but of equal importance is the extent of traffic entering the city which comes from other cities who are our “bedroom communities.” At one of the meetings the author asked that the city definitively determine the extent of being a bedroom community by doing the following:

Have MRCOG or MRGCOG or highway District 3 (?) place concurrent traffic counters on the entrance and exit lanes of all roads leading into and out of Rio Rancho for a grand 24 hour traffic count. This should give a ratio of entering and exiting job holders, which might be of economic interest. As the city grows, will that ratio change, or with more business and industrial development in Rio Rancho will it remain about the same? If it is going to remain about the same, then probably the required road expansion will always be an increasing worry.

Have the city or one of its contractors (EDC) conduct a business survey of all city businesses with over 5 employees, including Intel, to determine in some ranked order the number of employees by zip code. We will then know where all our workers make their homes.

The city councilor attending the meeting stated that this information was already available. If so, the citizens and city officials of Rio Rancho might benefit in having a succinct summary of who is a bedroom community to whom.

CITY FINANCES: The city of Rio Rancho’s growth has not been unlike like that of a child. After a steady growth, and a late teenage growth spurt resulting in our current status, we are now experiencing a slowing period and adulthood when we have to decide what we are going to make of ourselves. As usual, the next step depends on how much money we have to spend.