THE TRUE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE $20,000,000 CITY BONDS

      I revisit the subject of my previous blog because City Council members and the media bandy about the settlement cost of $20M, and, as a result, the public does not know that Council’s recently passed Ordinance 3089 allows the city to issue settlement bonds which will incur additional interest costs ranging from $10M (5% interest) to $30M (10% interest).  In other numbers, the city’s borrowing will add 50% to 150% in costs to the settlement cost.  So LCPD officer Felipe Hernandez’s killing of Teresa Gomez might cost Las Cruces as much as $50M.

I cannot be precise about the interest rate for two reasons.  One, the bonds have not been put out for sale.  Two, City Manager Ikani Taumoepeau’s staff, probably at his direction, does not want me to know; it refuses to provide those estimates which Council should and might have had in deciding to sell bonds to cover the settlement.  The likely motive for refusing me this information: neither the aggregate amount nor the 20-year payment period would likely be politically popular.

 

Council had two options for paying off the $20M settlement.  The one which it adopted is the sale of bonds.  Thus, Ordinance 3089 specifies limits: no more than $21M face value ($1M for administrative costs), no more than 10% interest, and no more than 20 years.  The effect is that the current City Council imposes repayment costs on future Councils for 20 years, with their budgets for services or projects reduced or taxpayers’ bills increased to fund annual repayments.

 

Some people might liken mortgage or capital improvement payments to these settlement bond payments.  But there is a big difference between them.  Payees of mortgage or capital improvement bonds enjoy the benefits of the houses or roads, bridges, or buildings during the lifetime of the bonds.  The public enjoys no benefit during the 20-year repayment period.

 

The other option is paying off the settlement in current funds.  City Council could have directed the City Manager to make one-time deferments or cuts in services and projects to find $20M, or 3.4%, in the city budget of $596.6M.  These relatively modest adjustments would thus avoid $10M to $30M in interest payments.

 

The question is who benefits from the choice of options.  Obviously, the public does not benefit from the first option (bond debt), but City Council members do.  They avoid the political cost of approving cuts in services and projects.  They also avoid the question of responsibility for their refusal to undertake police reform of any kind over the past 4 years, which might have prevented Officer Hernandez from killing Srta. Gomez in the first place and on their watch.

 

In short, Ordinance 3089 reflects City Council members’ self-serving political decision to prevent accountability from public dissatisfaction with reduced services or projects during their term in office.  The interest costs of deferred payments are a lot to pay for their political comfort.

 

Could and would City Council members ever do the right thing in this matter, they should revoke Ordinance 3089, approve a revised budget deferring or cutting funds for some services or projects amounting to $20,000,000, and impose all costs and consequences on the current Council, not on future councils.  Otherwise, citizens might want to reconsider their support for those who voted for Ordinance 3089, shifted most settlement costs and schedules to others, and skipped out on their responsibilities.

CITY COUNCIL WANTS COSTLY BONDS AND IPRA LIMITS TO PAY FOR OR COVER UP POLICE MISCONDUCT

       On 2 December, Lucas Herndon of District 2 pointed out to the Las Cruces City Council that New Mexico is known nationally and internationally as the most dangerous state in the country for police killings of civilians.  [Albuquerque and Las Cruces have roughly similar ratios of annual police killings, about one per 100,000 civilians.]  His questions about what Council means by public safety were general ones, with some addressing overall funding for public safety and of settlements for LCPD killings. 

My 26 November blog, “Las Cruces Cannot Afford This City Council,” stated the costs of three killings: in 2020, Antonio Valenzuela, $6,500,000; in 2022, Amelia Baca, $2,750,000; and in 2023, Teresa Gomez, $20,000,000, the largest in the city’s and probably in the state’s history.  I noted Council’s condolences for the Gomez family and wondered whether Council would feel similarly about all future victims of cop-killings and compensate similarly all victims’ families.

 

We are now learning City Council’s means to finance the Gomez settlement.  It has just passed Ordinance 3089, which authorizes municipal gross receipts tax revenue bonds not to exceed $21 million face value, 10% interest, or 20 years to settle with the Gomez estate.  Before the vote, Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilor, Johana Bencomo opined that “If a $20 million settlement doesn’t shake us out of this place, I’m not sure what will.”

 

Bencomo’s opinion is morally obscene.  The Valenzuela and Baca killings did not “shake” Bencomo to pursue what she said that she wanted two years ago, namely, “real police reform” (emphasis hers).  The Gomez killing did.  The difference: the earlier killings involved only seven-figure settlements; the later one involved an eight-figure settlement.  What “shakes” Bencomo is the cost of the settlements, not the cost in lost lives; in other words, she would have been “unshaken” and tolerated more police killings if the costs of settlements were not too high.  So much for her professed concerns about human lives, public safety, and police reform.

 

Not only has City Council been compelled to pay a settlement far larger than “condolences” would suggest, but it has also adopted an unwise means to finance it.  Whatever may have been discussed in executive session in agreeing to this settlement, it is unlikely that Council members considered any of the following three important questions which have consequential answers; they certainly did not mention or discuss them in the 6 January public meeting when they passed Ordinance 3089 without comment.

 

(1)  What are the estimated full or cumulative costs—principal and interest—over the 20-year lifetime of the $21 million in revenue bonds at different interest rates?

 

(2)  Why is a direct payment from the current budget, despite necessary cuts in selected budget items, not a preferable because less expensive way to achieve the same end?

 

(3)  Why should the costs of this settlement extend beyond the terms of office of the members of the City Council on whose watch the killing or the settlement occurred?

 

The failure of Council Members to consider these questions raises a fourth: why did they not ask and answer them?  Here are some possible reasons.  To (1), Council members probably want to hide the total cost of the bonds, which ranges between $31 million (at 5%) and $50 million (at 10%)—so much more than the stated $21 million face value that the public might object.  To (2), they probably do not want to go to the trouble or to incur the political pain of selecting budget items for cuts, despite the additional cost of $10 to $29 million by using bonds.  To (3), they thus hope to avoid accountability at the ballot box by spreading the costs to many who had nothing to do with their fecklessness.  These reasons might sway the public to belatedly oppose Ordinance 3089; they should also embarrass Council members enough to induce them to reconsider it.  It is not too late for Council to do the right thing, even if it means loss of face and some real work.

 

This issue reflects the refusal of City Council to set policies which might lead to “real police reform.”  Instead, Council members want to conceal police misconduct which might (finally) arouse the citizens of Las Cruces to demand reform.  The first step in that effort is to support restrictions on access to the information about police misconduct, especially killings of citizens.

 

Thus, after City Council lost an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) case costing Las Cruces about $150,000, City Clerk Christine Rivera, who committed IPRA violations and was a losing defendant, wants restrictions on IPRA requests.  Her argument at the 12 November Council working session is that her staff is overburdened by growing numbers of IPRA requests.  Many of them are resource-consuming IPRA requests for police camera footage, which require considerable effort and time to review and, if necessary, redact it.  After my IPRA request led to the release of footage showing LCPD Officer Jared Cosper killing Sra. Amelia Baca, many citizens were shocked by how some officers operate and raised questions about LCPD leadership and training—obviously, not matters which Council or the LCPD want discussed in public.

 

Any limits on IPRA requests curtail what the public can know about government operations.  There are two ways to limit requests.  One way is to limit access: create administrative hurdles or exempt certain categories of public records.  State law defines the exceptions to IPRA requests.  It exempts categories—among others, personal records, business decisions, attorney-client privilege—necessary to protect sensitive data.  Exempting other categories would run counter to the purpose of IPRA because doing so would give government the right to decide which of its operations the public can know about—a clear conflict of interest. 

 

The other way is to limit access by requiring citizens to pay fees to fulfill IPRA requests.  Rivera’s recommendation is that City Council urge the State to amend the law to permit such fees.  The problem is that they would be discriminatory, differentiating between those with discretionary funds from those without them.  They would operate like a poll tax on public records, which are the legal property of the public without regard to economic status.

 

The odd thing about the City Clerk’s argument is that, when citizens demand more services, City Council usually responds by providing them.  The obvious counter-argument is that the city should allocate additional resources to accommodate them.  But something so sensible is alien to the Las Cruces city government’s arrogant desire for secrecy, as if it knows best and does better without the involvement of the citizens who elect or support them.