Illustrated Daily; 3038; City/County Unification: New Energy for an Old Idea?

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . You translate support for a joint city county office building into support for some kind of unification of the two units of government? As a step in that direction. Because part of what was sold to the public, on that building, was we would be in a position to step by step to merge those programs that would be cost effective and to share in those programs. So that's one thing. The other major, I said they were several, but two that I would mention. I think it's part of my own campaign. If you put that in context of a district that is very difficult for a Democrat to win. I ran 3,500 votes ahead of the senator elect and over 4,000 votes ahead of the governor elect in that district. And just barely one. And you made city county consolidation. That was a major issue in that campaign. We talked that everywhere, including the mountain areas and with 2,300 votes cast in the mountains,

I lost the mountains by about 79 votes. And you think that somehow is a vindication of the idea of city county consolidation? I don't, I think it is not an expression of strong opposition to it. All right, all right. Let's talk about the merits you believe associated with city county unification. And I understand you prefer to talk of it in those terms, rather than in terms of consolidation. What would such a unified arrangement do for county residents, which county government presently does not do? What would it do for city residents, the city hall presently does not do? Okay. Well, let me start with some of the finances. Right now in the two governments, we have two data processing centers, two purchasing departments, two personal departments down the line. Many of the things that county government would like to do, and some of the residents in the near south valley and parts of the northwest, and particularly in the mountains, are services that they need and desire, county government cannot provide at this moment

because they're having to pay for some of the same services, that the same taxpayer is already paying for again. And I emphasize always, it's the same taxpayer, the same set, regardless where you live in this county, you pay for two governments. You pay to sales tax for one and you pay for property tax for the other. And so you're paying for two governments. And so the county resident, frankly, has some claim in my judgment to want some services in the city. They do not get them because of these artificial boundaries that are drawn. Now you begin to relieve money of that sort. And now you can begin to provide more police. Look at the crime rates in the near south valley. Periodically, the crime rates in the mountains, the response time for a sheriff's officer. And pretty densely settled parts of the mountain. It's fairly significant simply because they do not have that kind of staffing. In the valley areas in particular, we have water and sewer problems. Many of the residents are getting them now, but they're paying a premium price for them. And I would emphasize that word premium,

whereas if it were one governmental body, that premium price would no longer have any reason to stand. Roads, road maintenance, street maintenance, street lighting, which goes along with the crime problem. Many of the amenities, particularly in the more densely populated areas, could be provided with the savings of monies. I mean, you say many of them, not all of them, because it'd be very costly to put them all in. With the savings of money by elimination of duplication. All right. Obviously, a change like you are recommending, and on which you ran in your successful race for a seat on the City Commission, would require the approval of local voters. Does the county, and does the city, currently have the authority to submit that kind of proposal to the voters? In the framework of the permission that's given, the development of a charter, and the submission of it to the voters, and it must carry the responsibility of the city,

of the city, of the city, of the city, and it must carry independently, under the present law, both within the municipal limits, and outside the municipal limits, that framework is in place and could be done. All right. One last question before we turn to our next guest. I'd like to talk about one element of this controversy, which surfaced in 1973, namely that without some kind of unification of city and county government, land-use planning within the General Metropolitan Area of Albuquerque, would suffer. Now, it's a decade later. Can you in any wise document land-use planning has suffered for want of consolidation? I think we can. I think in taking a look at the entire west side, the controversy, the law suits existing between the city and the county, between the city and county, drawing against Paradise Hill zoning commission, between the village of Corralis, the Baja Corralis residents

and the city of Albuquerque. The hard feelings going on in terms of certain transportation that works now between the village of Los Ranchos and the city of Albuquerque and the county of Bernalillo. All of these stemmed from the fact there has been no overall single planning move about a large number of independent agencies and political bodies involved in the planning. On the west side, a cruise road will be a major spine for arterial for travel over there, for a good 10 years. There are many reasons, many strong arguments that you have to plan course very carefully, not to cause a kind of congestion over there that would really be a deterrent to overall development. All right. And yet it's being torn up in little pieces. All right. We'll have to return to that for the moment. But now for a different perspective, how Stratton, whose legislative district embraces large sections of Bernalillo County outside of the city limits of Albuquerque,

Representative Stratton is not in the least taken by the idea of City County Unification, but Representative Stratton is good to have you here. Thank you, Hal. Good to be back. Why Representative Stratton do emotions run apparently so high, Marion's successful race for a seat on the City Commission, not with County Commission, not with Standing? In the areas outside of the city in Bernalillo County, why do emotions run so high on this matter? Well, people, when they move to where they're going to live, have a choice. They can move into the city or they can move into the county. And I personally live in the city on the West Side. I live in volcano cliffs, and that's a portion of the city and has been for a long time. And I like to live there. But on the other hand, there's many out there on the West Side who want to live in the county and who don't want to live in the city, Baja Corralis, Paradise Hills. And they've chosen to live in the county and don't want what the city has to offer. They've got lower taxes and they have less services, and they've made that choice.

And I think that's the reason that it runs high. They don't want the City of Albuquerque dictating to them what's going to happen in their community. That's the whole reason for the Paradise Hills Zoning Commission. And that's the reason why our survey just two or three months ago showed it. Its favorability rating is about 180 to 8. People want local control of what they're doing. And they perceive those who live in the county, particularly far out in the county, some distant government dictating to them what's going to happen in their community. Albuquerque City government has perceived this distance. Absolutely. Is that perspective of the West Mesa? Oh, absolutely. We don't have a bridge, how? We can't get to town. It's considered not only distant, but it's also considered different. And that's what I mean, not just distant in actual distance, but different in a distant different way. As nearly as I can tell, one of the major issues in the 1981 municipal elections here in the City of Albuquerque emerged as a question of whether or not this whole metropolitan area,

it has been and can be down the road, properly planned, to accommodate the kind of growth it is being asked to accommodate. Now you've heard what Marion Contrault has had to say about the complications associated with an effective planning system for the larger metropolitan area, and other county residents like it or not, they are a part of that larger metropolitan area. I'm curious what you have to say about that. Well, we presumably have a comprehensive plan that's supposed to plan the county. It's supposed to be approved by everybody, and you're supposed to stay within those guidelines when a particular zoning commission with the possible exception of the Paradise Hills Zoning Commission, apparently what the court says, you have to stay within the guidelines of the comprehensive plan. As a practical matter, the courts haven't constrained the government entities to do that. When you want to change an area for a shopping center, from R1 to special use, it hadn't been a problem in the courts of a held it. I presume, and once again, nobody's made any specific recommendations as to how we would do this.

Maybe we have a super planning commission for the whole county, including the city and the county, possibly. I'm not sure things have been any different in that regard, and I once again say that planning on the west side and planning in Paradise Hills, what the question of what good planning might be is in the eyes of the holder, basically. The people in Paradise Hills don't like, in a lot of ways, what the people in Albuquerque are doing, in the same way in other rural parts of the county. All right. Can we talk those in specifics in the planning area? Water, for example. Mary and Clark from mentioned water the moment ago. It is a problem in the county, and many areas, at least, of the county. This, in two senses, one involves water quality, where there are serious problems about even the potability of the water that's available outside the city of Albuquerque. The other is water costs, which are higher for county residents, who hook in to the city water system in order to have potable water for their use. Now, you talk about lower taxes for county residents, but those who need water have to pay more to get it, so it doesn't, aren't you, in fact, kind of canceling

one thing out with another here? In a way, you are, first of all, the water prices aren't nearly as high as the taxes are low. On the other hand, if people want that, why should I tell them they need to pay lower for water and accept all these other things they might have to accept? We've come a long way in solving that problem, I think, with a recent constitutional amendment that was approved by the voters on the ballot, that represented Walker from Aztec, carried in the last legislative session, allows the county now to get into those areas of water sewer and airports. I don't know what airports has to do with it, but it's in the bill. So, now the counties can engage in that if they want. If the people want to set up an assessment district and if they want to float bonds for sewer and water, they can do it, where they couldn't have before. That was a problem, I think, we've gone a long way to solve it. The economics of the establishment of water system are enormous, however. Well, that's fine. But once again, you're given the people the choice in the county, whether they want to do that or not. How about people who don't have a choice? The other side of that coin, which many of the critics of the present separate organization of county

and city government often raise. And that is, what do you say to the proposition that county residents who work predominantly in the city, shop predominantly in the city, recreate predominantly in the city, receive city services for which they do not pay their fair share of the cost, in the form of street, street maintenance, section of water in the city, and the city residents. In turn, have to pay those costs, whether or not county residents make any contribution whatsoever. That's a problem. I don't think it's nearly as bad as they like to tell us because the gross receipts tax is paid by those county residents while they're in the city as well as the city residents. And so I don't think that's the biggest problem as it's made out to be. I think that's one of those arguments that the proponents use that really isn't that deep. No, and do you have any reaction on that? I might insert here, in all fairness, that I differed with my good friend Tom Hoover, quite frequently on the city council in this question, when he would say the county residents did not pay their share. County residents in Bernalio County pay for city government

because the average county family does most of their shopping, they're including their grocery shopping at a store that is within the city limits. They pay a grocery receipts tax. The primary revenue of the city of Albuquerque for operations, and this is 87% of their general fund money, comes from that tax. So every county resident is already paying for city government. The one thing they're not paying for is some of the capital projects. That's the only differential in taxes that we're talking about. How do we talk about it? Twenty mills. Twenty one mills, I think, is what the city's capital project mill is. What capital projects specifically would we be talking about which might be used on a regular basis by county residents who would not pay into that? Some of those would be many of the amenities of the community, such as the libraries, the museum. I think of those two right away that are on that. We don't put much water and sewer on anymore. Most of the street, the major arterial streets, are paid for in part by this mill levy.

The new intersections you've seen developed at St. Menal and University and so forth, the concrete paving that's a million and a half dollars to do that. That's paid for out of that mill levy and so forth. These are the... But you don't necessarily yourself embrace with the great deal of enthusiasm, the argument of the county residents are piggy banking on city residents. In fact, I go the other way. They're paying for city government. They're paying probably the same money for city government, you and I are paying. So why don't we... What do you say to them? They're both paying for city government. I say if they want to live in the county and pay for city government, it's up to them. If they want that, what is normally a more rural situation, and they want to pay for that, it's okay with me? Well, that's a little over simplistic because Paradise Hill is not ruled. Paradise Hill is an urban area, much of the North Valley, despite the fact that the village of Los Ranchos says they're trying to protect the rural atmosphere. Look at the densities that they have permitted by their own zoning commission

to come into the village of Los Ranchos since 1970. And look at the condominiums that are being built in many of these areas. It's not maintained the rule. It really isn't. But we're a community number one, and we've got to act as a community. Well, let me just say that the people in the Baja Corralis area and the mountain area would probably... Maybe I shouldn't have used rule. That means different things to different people, but it's certainly different living in the Albuquerque mountain district. Has there been, as opposed to sub-burbon or something like that? Well, I would certainly agree, but I really think... In my view, and again, the only way these people can help improve it has become a part of it. But I really think the city's made up of neighborhoods. And each one is unique, and each one... You've got to have some right and some responsibility in the city for the neighborhoods and the smaller communities protect their way of life. We've got to do that. We're not doing it well in Albuquerque. But let me say that those people who claim they would do it well on their own

are not doing it well. And my proposal, my idea is that we can probably get together and do it better and protect these rights. I understand where Al is basically coming from on this. I think the city has brought a great deal of the problem on themselves by many of their own attitudes. Actions that they take, by the bureaucracy. Actions taken by the elected officials. And all the years that I was there, I was jokingly called the counties representing one of the city council. Because I asked first to cooperate. Let do the things together. And for us to put up only a certain amount of the money in the county, most of that worked. But when we began wrangling over the amount of money, one of the other counties would say, well, now, you know, the county's counselor... I want to ask you something, the other side of this, and there's an argument, a lot of city residents and city functionaries I've heard you may, namely that it is really not in the best interest of the residents of the city of Albuquerque

to want to assume greater responsibilities for the standards of service offered to residents of the county of Bernalillo. That it in fact might cost city residents even more if that were to come to be the case because you would have to upgrade county services. If you were talking a consolidation along the 1973 model of everything becoming city in the county, a plan that I think is not workable and one that I don't think we ought to be talking about. You're talking about bankrupting the city. It cannot provide those services. It does not have the tax base to do that. Unless you raise the taxes on the people in the county. And including the people in the city. You would have to raise on present city residents taxes threefold to provide those services because there is not enough tax base in the county to even start to take care of that. So when county folks say, well, they just want to rip us off and get our taxes. That is not true.

Economically, there is no way to get a return on that. But if you develop a different model, one of cooperation and one of planning together for the community and so forth, maintain basically city county boundaries but had a common governing body. Had the mayor elected county wide and let me emphasize there is no one local official who is as important to the people of the South Valley, the North Valley, paradise hills or the mountains. Because decisions that he will make in policies that he will recommend and the bureaucracy will in his direction affects us all. Would you agree with that, Hal? I think the mayor is very important. In fact, I will give you a specific example. I think that because we have had a mayor for the previous four years who was against the North Valley river crossing, that he has prevented us from proceeding four years worth of time on that particular project. Now that we have a mayor who is in favor of it, who really is a spokesman for the city and in some sense the spokesman for the county at least the area, we are making some progress on the issue.

There is no single spokesman with political power commensurate to the metropolitan area of Albuquerque, which is a genuine unit in many respects no matter what the different lifestyles which occur within the larger Albuquerque metropolitan area. Is it not conceivable that the community as a whole with all of its diversity would be better serviced if there were someone who had authority commensurate to the realities of the political community called Albuquerque? Including Rio Rancho, parts of Valencia County, Placidas, other parts of other counties. You would probably have opened up a lot of problems here because you would have jurisdictions to overcome. I prefer not. I'm not interested in giving one person that authority or even one council that authority. I think it's better to divide it up really. I think it's better representation now. Well you have sometimes some problems sometimes getting things moved along

but at least you have a wider representation. It's more closely aligned with the local constituency. Albuquerque metropolitan area is quite approaching a half million people today. It's 425,000 plus. I'm going about in the county. When you take the metropolitan area it's closer to half million. As other cities have grown to half million mark, they have found some variation on the theme of consolidating at least certain functions of government, not only attractive but almost inevitable and necessary. As this process continues, what's your hunch, Hal Stratton? Do you think we are going in time to have to look at some kind of consolidation at some areas of government at the very least? Sure, eventually we will. I was one of the prime sponsors of the Metropolitan Court Bill, which consolidated the metropolitan area courts into one court. It's had its problems but I think it's been good generally. At least certainly in a civil end of things. I don't know much criminal work and I've heard some complaints but I think we will see those areas that need to be consolidated

if I can use that word or unified. The bill or the resolution that Representative Kate's carried either last year or two years ago, whenever it was, was much more than that in my opinion if my recollection is correct and the way it was certainly explained to me by him, it was more of a consolidation of the county in the city and the one entity and he thought representing a primarily urban area or primarily municipal area within the city of Albuquerque that that would certainly benefit the folks in his areas. I don't think he talked to Marion about that before he did it. I was very much opposed to that. Brad and Julie worked together pretty well on some of these issues. This is former representative. Brad Kate's. The problem is it was sort of modeled after an old 1973 study. I will not equivocate and I supported the 1973 merger but after eight years in public life and a little more maturing. A little more gray hair. I think it was a mistake, that concept.

It basically did everything on the city's terms and I still contend that we've got to look at bringing two governments together. What about the idea of what's the call? A functional consolidation where you take things like the court system and you collapse them into one. The jail is in the county city building. There's a very good example. They're both down there right next to each other. They're both government ledities. They do need to work with one another and there's no reason we should have to legislate that. After all, they're public servants. They should try to work with one another to help us anyway. It's a good idea to put them in the same building. Why build two separate buildings, which are obviously going to cost more money? But to me, that's not tantamount, too. I want to ask you something. Something that an old county resident said to me not long ago on this subject. He said all these plans to integrate the court system and to build a single building and now they're talking police in the Sheriff's Department somehow bringing them together.

There are nothing more than subversive ways to accomplish what otherwise we don't want to have happen out here in the county. And I hear you talking that. Are you a subversive? I would hope not. I've heard that. I've heard that before. Nobody has ever accused me as being subversive on this particular issue anyway. But no, I don't think so. And once again, the fact that we consolidated the court. The court is a special, completely different entity. And the fact that we're putting them in the same building doesn't mean that we're going to... And I remind you that it took a constitutional amendment, or at least Representative Cates, but it took a constitutional amendment to do what he wanted to do. So we're a very long way down the road from anything close to that. I've got exactly 15 seconds and in 15 seconds, is this functional consolidation nothing more than a subversive way to accomplish objectives? No, I don't think so. I would say again, two governments paid verbal ones at a textbook. All right. Two governments paid for them. We need to serve them. We have two guests I have to leave at this time. Thanks so much, gentlemen. Appreciate it a lot. That's it for tonight. Please join us tomorrow. One of the illustrator that he goes on location for a visit

to the historic chemo theater in downtown Albuquerque and a lively look at the performing arts in this part of the world. Thanks for joining us. I am Hal Rhodes. Good night. Thank you.