The city of Albuquerque would commit its gross income tax to pay off a new bond for a multi-purpose football stadium if voters approve it this fall. (Adolphe Pierre-Louis / Journal File)
Albuquerque voters will decide this fall whether the city should invest in a new multi-purpose football stadium, using millions of dollars that the project’s supporters say would otherwise not go to crime-fighting.
The narrative, which recently hit social media, bypasses the fact that the money tied up in the proposed $ 50 million stadium loan is being legally spent on public safety – or many other basic city services should the bond fail.
If voters approve the stadium bond when they vote on November 2nd, the city would borrow $ 50 million by issuing bonds to design and build the venue. The city would mortgage gross tax receipts to pay off the resulting debt – officials estimate payments will amount to about $ 3.2 million a year for 20 years.
BRT is the tax that is levied on the sale of goods and services. It’s more flexible than some sources of income; the city can use it for capital expenditures such as buildings as well as basic city operations. GRT is the lifeblood of the city’s general fund, which covers police and firefighters salaries, park maintenance, road maintenance, animal shelters and more.
But amid criticism from some local residents that the city has much greater needs than a football stadium, a stadium-friendly political action committee recently created an infographic that differentiates between the money the city would spend on the stadium and the money the city would spend on the stadium used them for crime fighting.
The committee, NM For Art & Sport, is so far funded entirely by New Mexico United, according to recent campaign funding reports. United is the professional football team that, through a lease with the city, would be the main tenant of the new stadium.
The PAC’s fact-versus-fiction stadium graphic – shared by fans on various social media platforms – states as a fact: “The money used to fight crime in Albuquerque comes from the general fund. The money that would be used for this stadium is tied up for investment projects. Not spending money on a stadium does not mean that more money is available for fighting crime. “
It’s true that the tax revenue the city would use to repay a stadium loan was spent on debt related to other capital projects until this summer.
But the city recently paid off some of those bonds, releasing about $ 4 million annually, said Sanjay Bhakta, Albuquerque’s chief financial officer. The city could borrow money for a stadium and use these newly realized savings for annual payments – a strategy to finance the stadium without increasing taxes.
The city council pushed this plan forward in August and passed a bill that issues the $ 50 million tax bond for electoral approval and ties the money to the stadium project.
David Carl, United’s Director of Communications and Chairman of the Pro Stadium PAC, defended the graphic’s message based on this vote.
“On August 16, the city council voted 7-2 to allocate these funds to capital projects,” he wrote in a statement to the Journal. “We stand by our factually correct statement that not spending money on a stadium means that there is no more money available for fighting crime.”
He claims that the stadium could eventually generate new funds for public safety.
But if the $ 50 million stadium loan doesn’t go through, the money won’t be stuck in capital projects forever, even if it’s been there before.
It would be conceivable to go to the general fund, where he could pay the running costs of the city, including the police; or it could remain as a source of funding for capital projects.
That would be a matter for the city guides.
Should the loan fail, redistributing the money would require “going through the entire council process again,” said Bhakta in an email, noting that both the council and the mayor would have a say.
Comments are closed.