Connect with us

New Mexico

UNM study finds Santolina developers ‘likely overstated’ goals – Source New Mexico

Published

on

UNM study finds Santolina developers ‘likely overstated’ goals – Source New Mexico


An economic analysis from the University of New Mexico found that developer targets “are likely overstated,” for Santolina, a controversial development on Albuquerque’s far west side, and warrants further study of its potential revenues and potential costs.

UNM’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research further found that under more realistic hypothetical scenarios for housing, population and employment growth, New Mexico governments’ spending to build public facilities and services could outstrip the tax revenues.

Currently the Santolina project is structured to allow tax revenues from Bernalillo County to reimburse development costs through the creation of a Tax Increment Development District (TIDD).

Developers for Santolina are required to show the development will meet a “no net expense provision,” as part of the Planned Communities policy adopted by the county.

Advertisement

UNM researchers said the data was limited in some of the projections, but their findings raised questions about whether the development can realistically meet its stated goals.

“Just based on our results from our study, which is a snapshot, not comprehensive, the county may want to examine the revenues versus costs, in order to evaluate the ‘no new net cost’ criteria of the project,” said Julian Baca, one of the researchers in an interview with Source NM.

The Bernalillo County Commission invited Baca to present the findings for 10 minutes to the commission Tuesday evening.

Commissioner Eric Olivas called the findings “eye-popping,” and said further discussion should occur with the county manager, economic development staff and planning staff.

“The level of public investment to subsidize a private developer is massive, and I don’t see the return on investment for the jobs that are projected to be created,” Olivas said.

Advertisement

He called it a “cautionary tale” in approving economic development agreements, when the county requires further investments in infrastructure.

Commissioner Walt Benson asked who funded the study. It was funded in 2022 from Senate Joint Memorial 3, brought by Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Albuquerque), who represents the district.

Benson asked for “further information,” of what property taxes, which were not part of the analysis, would contribute to reimbursing the developer.

“Trying to make a decision based on a partial [analysis], it’s not fair to us up here,” he said.

Commission chair Barbara Baca said that the council was constrained by time limits, but said future discussions may happen.

Advertisement

“This is a very short time to cover a very large issue, we could do a study session or something like that, where we can really delve into these kinds of very important questions,” Baca said.

“We will continue the conversation,” she concluded.

What is Santolina?

Santolina is a long-debated effort to build a “planned community” over 13,700 acres for a projected 100,000 people (just smaller than Rio Rancho’s current population).

Once a portion of the Atrisco Land Grant, the 21-square miles sandwiched by Interstate 40, 118th Street and Rio Puerco is now owned by developer Western Albuquerque Land Holdings. In the 2015 master plan, the eventual goal is to build 38,000 homes and create 75,000 jobs.

The proposed location for the Santolina project. (Photo courtesy Bernalillo County)

Bernalillo County Commissioners approved the first phase of Santolina planning in June 2015.

Advertisement

There has been no development at Santolina, as several phases of planning need approval.

In 2022, the board unanimously approved two requests from developers; including speeding up the timeline to 30 years, and designated more granular zoning for industrial use in a small portion of the proposed development. The board approved the plans over the objections of the planning commission and residents.

Farmers in the South Valley, community members and environmental groups have opposed the development for nearly a decade, contributing to the Contra Santolina group. Their objections have often centered around the development’s proposed water consumption, which residents said would push farmers out as climate change shrinks water supply from the Rio Grande.

The Bureau of Business and Economic Research report

The developer’s goals for Santolina are more optimistic than historic employment and population growth in Albuquerque suggest.

New Mexico is in the bottom five nationally in terms of population growth in the past ten years, Baca said.

Advertisement

“In terms of forecasts, all the data points to much more conservative growth, housing stock and population,” he said.

The targets set by Santolina developers are potentially way too high.

If Santolina met its stated goals issued to public officials, it would account for 49% of new housing in the area,165% of population growth and 62% of employment, the report found.

Researchers found the most active neighborhoods accounted for “no more than 10-15% of new housing in the last five years,” according to building permit data from the city of Albuquerque.

The report also looked at a case study of Mesa Del Sol, another planned community project, within city limits in southeastern Albuquerque.

Advertisement

While both developments have similarly stated goals, Mesa Del Sol has been in development for the past 18 years. Mesa Del Sol is way below developer expectations, the report found, only accounting for under 2% of housing permits over the last decade in Bernalillo County.

The 56-page report, commissioned by the state legislature, uses data from public sources, such as the New Mexico Department of Transportation, and interviews with public entities, but also a feasibility study commissioned by the developer and details from the master plan.

“In our assessment, recent economic, demographic and housing data do not appear to support the targets sought by Santolina Developers,” the report said in its conclusion, requesting further research on actual costs for government services and potential tax revenues.

The report further notes that if Santolina only meets 20% of its goals (an 80% reduction) it would “reduce the employment, population and potential tax revenues substantially.”

Water infrastructure and roads would be an up-front cost to the developer, Baca said, but portions of those costs could be reimbursed under the tax incentives.

Advertisement

A 2018 estimate from Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, said water infrastructure to the development would cost $659 million over three phases.

With rising costs in construction and labor, that number could potentially double to $1.3 billion, Baca said.

Officials from the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority said Thursday that costs on water infrastructure construction spiked by varying degrees over the last few years.

“Depending on the type of work being done we’ve seen a 30% to 70% cost increase over the last five years,” said David Morris, a spokesperson for the water utility.

Baca emphasized this study is independent research.

Advertisement

“We have a reputation, a track record of doing good independent, third-party, objective research,” he said.

Previous commissioners authorized Bernalillo County tax revenues to reimburse the Santolina development, but potentially state tax revenues could be in the mix as well. Part of the fiscal analysis the developer’s commissioned looked at seeking state reimbursements, but that would require additional authorization.

“That would make it not just a Bernalillo County issue, but a statewide issue,” Baca said.

What’s next?

A handful of public commenters urged the commissioners to reconsider further approval of the Santolina development Tuesday night.

Linda Starr, a South Valley resident said the previous commissioners approved the development without checking the facts.

Advertisement

“I hope you will review [Santolina] thoroughly, and please consider the fact that this area should have never been up for development,” she told the commission.

Outside the Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners meeting on Aug. 19, 2022, protesters with the Contra Santolina Working Group chanted, “No WALH, no sprawl!” (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM)

The Bernalillo County Commission has adopted two rounds of planning (called a Level A plan and a portion of Level B plans), and county commissioners are the final authority on planning and development on these first levels.

A third, more granular, level of planning called the Site Development Plan (Level C), only needs approval from Bernalillo County staff before any development can happen, according to the Planned Communities policy.

Groups against the project are asking commissioners to reconsider the Bernalillo Comprehensive Plan which guides development and planning in the county. The draft will be presented at a March 19 meeting.

“Taking a harder look at the reliance on Santolina in the comprehensive plan is one thing, ” said Maslyn Locke, a senior staff attorney with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, who has represented people opposing the project.

“The bigger thing the (Bernalillo County Commission) needs to do is really look at whether or not Santolina should have been approved in the first place.”

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

New Mexico

Future of free childcare for all families in New Mexico remains uncertain

Published

on

Future of free childcare for all families in New Mexico remains uncertain


Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has no regrets about universal childcare.

As she approaches the end of her second term in New Mexico’s top office, she acknowledges there are some things she would have done differently. In a recent interview, she called 20/20 hindsight a “very powerful tool” that not enough politicians put to good use.

Moving the state toward a free childcare system — open to all New Mexico families regardless of income — isn’t on that list, however. The issue has turned into one of the defining public policy issues of Lujan Grisham’s tenure — which will come to an end later this year. The state’s heavily Democratic Legislature, initially wary of the program, has since voiced support and created a funding stream to continue the initiative for the next five years.

Advertisement

‘You have to start there’

Childcare costs, benefits

Advertisement

‘We have to get it right’

GOP might ‘peel back’ scope

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New Mexico

Opinion: Applauding Heinrich for bi-partisan permitting reform work – New Mexico Political Report

Published

on

Opinion: Applauding Heinrich for bi-partisan permitting reform work – New Mexico Political Report






Opinion: Applauding Heinrich for bi-partisan permitting reform work – New Mexico Political Report












Advertisement



Advertisement





Skip to content

Advertisement


Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

New Mexico

New Mexico lawmakers, leaders respond to federal lawsuit

Published

on

New Mexico lawmakers, leaders respond to federal lawsuit


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — State lawmakers and leaders released the following statements in response to the federal lawsuit against New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez

“House Bill 9 is a constitutional exercise of state authority, and this office will defend it.  

The New Mexico Legislature passed this law after extensive consideration of documented harms occurring in immigration detention facilities operating in this state — inadequate medical care, deaths in custody, and conditions that fell well below acceptable standards. The Legislature made a considered judgment that New Mexico’s government, its employees, and its publicly funded facilities should not be instruments of a detention system that has caused serious and preventable harm to people held within our borders. That is precisely the kind of policy judgment that belongs to the states.  

Advertisement

The Constitution reserves to the states the power to govern their own affairs — including how state and local personnel are deployed and how publicly funded facilities are used. Federal agents remain free to enforce federal immigration law. They may make arrests, conduct investigations, and carry out removals. What they may not do is compel New Mexico’s officers, employees, and institutions to administer federal enforcement priorities the state has chosen not to adopt. The federal government has its own personnel and its own resources. It does not have a constitutional right to New Mexico’s.  

This lawsuit asks a federal court to override a democratically enacted state law because the administration disagrees with the policy choice the Legislature made. That is not a constitutional argument. It is an attempt to use federal litigation to reverse an outcome the administration dislikes. We will see them in court.” 

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller

“I will always stand up for the safety, rights, and dignity of Albuquerque residents. Our policies ensure ALL families can call 911, send their kids to school, and access City services without fear, while making clear that City resources are not tools for federal immigration raids. We are ready to defend our community, our values, and our public safety in court,”

City Councilor Dan Lewis

Advertisement

“Mayor Keller deserves to be sued for his reckless promotion of dangerous sanctuary policies that undermine cooperation between law enforcement agencies and put everyone at risk. Sanctuary laws don’t protect; they create more victims. I opposed Keller’s so-called ‘Safer Community Places’ ordinance from the beginning. It’s nothing more than obstruction of law enforcement and this mayor chose his radical ideology over public safety. Most people in our City agree that there is a public safety benefit when local, state and federal law enforcement work together to enforce the law and protect innocent people.”

Deb Haaland

“As ICE continues threatening communities across the country, the state is the first line of defense against the Trump administration. In New Mexico, we are lucky that the state and localities worked to lawfully pass legislation to protect New Mexicans and their families from ICE. We can’t let the federal government continue to exert their will on New Mexico and we won’t let them intimidate us. We are a multicultural state, we must stand strong with our neighbors. That means as governor, I will do anything in my power to stop ICE from tearing families apart and committing crimes in our streets while advocating for strong, common sense immigration and border security reform.”

The Democratic Party of New Mexico

“The Immigrant Safety Act passed both legislative chambers and was signed into law constitutionally, within our rights as a state, concerning New Mexico’s own personnel, facilities, and resources. The Trump Administration may not like that New Mexico stands for the safety of all the families in our communities and against inhumane and dangerous conditions in for-profit detention centers, but they have to respect our rights as a state.  

Advertisement

The fact of the matter is that the Trump Administration is overstepping its authority as they continue to force a violent, clumsy immigration agenda onto communities it has terrorized across the country against their will.”   

Republican Party of New Mexico

“The lawsuit filed by the United States against the State of New Mexico, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, Attorney General Raul Torrez, the City of Albuquerque, and Mayor Timothy Keller confirms what many New Mexicans have feared for months — that House Bill 9 and Albuquerque’s Safer Community Places Ordinance were driven by partisan politics rather than the safety, stability, and economic well-being of our communities.

Legislators who pushed HB9 chose political ideology over common sense and over the people they were elected to represent. This legislation appears to have been crafted not to improve public safety or immigration outcomes, but to advance an anti-Trump political agenda at any cost. In doing so, they ignored the serious consequences these policies would have on New Mexico families, local economies, county governments, and the very immigrants they claim to protect.

The federal government’s complaint makes clear that these laws threaten decades-long partnerships between local governments and federal authorities that have been essential to maintaining public safety and enforcing immigration law. These partnerships support jobs, economic activity, and critical infrastructure in communities like Otero County, where nearly 300 jobs are now at risk because of these reckless political decisions.

Advertisement

New Mexico legislators also failed to consider the financial burden these measures place on counties and municipalities already struggling with limited resources. Instead of working collaboratively to address immigration challenges responsibly and humanely, they chose confrontation and obstruction.

Most troubling is the complete disregard for the safety of New Mexicans. Policies that intentionally interfere with federal immigration enforcement risk creating greater instability, undermining law enforcement cooperation, and putting thousands of residents at risk. At the same time, these policies do nothing to improve the care, processing, or long-term outcomes for immigrants being housed in detention and processing facilities.

The people of New Mexico deserve leadership focused on public safety, economic security, and lawful solutions — not political theater designed to score partisan points. When elected officials prioritize ideology over citizens, communities suffer. The consequences of HB9 and related sanctuary-style policies are now being challenged in federal court, and New Mexicans are left to deal with the damage caused by leaders who appeared more interested in opposing President Trump than protecting the people of this state.

And now, after advancing policies that threaten jobs, hurt counties financially, undermine law enforcement cooperation, and divide communities, these same legislators want taxpayers to pay them for their failing policies. Instead of moving New Mexico forward, too many elected officials have focused solely on advancing their own political agendas while ignoring the real needs of working families, local governments, and public safety.

This election season, New Mexicans have an opportunity to speak loudly at the polls. The primary elections matter, and voters must carefully choose strong Republican candidates willing to go to Santa Fe and fight against harmful policies that put politics above people. New Mexico deserves leaders who will protect communities, strengthen the economy, support law enforcement, and put citizens first — not politicians who continue to gamble with the future of this state.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending