SSCAFCA Director Defends Deal

Says action saved public more than $800,000


By Eric Maddy
The SCORE

The Executive Director of the Sandoval County Arroyo Flood Control Authority is defending the purchase and demolition of a house in the proposed Lisbon Dam area Arroyo area, noting the purchase saved taxpayers more than $800,000.

In an op-ed piece submitted to The SCORE and the Albuquerque Journal, David Stoliker offers a differing view than what had been presented in a news report and an editorial in the newspaper last week.

“It could have been reported that SSCAFCA acted prudently and in the community’s best interest when it recently purchased an unoccupied house in the Lisbon Dam area and had it razed,” Stoliker writes. “The cost savings to the public exceeds $800,000 and was done in a timely fashion so that no homeowner will have to be displaced at a later date.”

Stoliker writes that SSCAFCA “has been working for more than five years in an attempt to secure the property necessary to construct the four dams in the Black Watershed, including the Lisbon Dam project. Unfortunately, SSCAFCA did not have the funding in place to purchase the lot in question prior to construction.”

Voters turned down SSCAFCA bond issues in August 2002 and October 2003 that included requests for the Black Watershed area. After voters did approve $1.5 million for the project on Nov. 2, 2004, “SSCAFCA did approach all lot owners in each of the four dam sites in an attempt to purchase their land at an average of around $20,000 per lot, which appraisals showed was the value of the properties at that time,” Stoliker writes. “The property owners in the area of one of the dams, the Lisbon Dam, declined SSCAFCA’s offers and instead threatened legal action against SSCAFCA.  

“During the negotiations, land values skyrocketed and SSCAFCA was faced with the difficult choice of dropping its acquisition of one or two of the dam site properties.  Because land had been purchased in the other three dam sites, the Lisbon Dam land acquisition project was dropped.  As it is, due to the current cost of land in Rio Rancho, SSCAFCA will now have to spend more than $80,000 an acre to purchase the land we need to protect residents downstream from potential flooding similar to that seen as recently as last summer.”

By the time funding became available, the owner, Eric Merryman, had already obtained a building permit from the City of Rio Rancho. And once that happened, Stoliker explained, there was no way to stop his construction.

When it came to the purchase of the lot and home, Stoliker writes: “This specific property was listed for sale by a local real estate agent for $498,000 on May 24, 2007.  SSCAFCA purchased the property from the owner for $460,000, saving taxpayers $38,000, or more than 7 percent of the owner’s initial request. Contrary to what was previously reported in a front page Journal story on November 6, 2007, a check for $460,000 was issued to a title company on behalf of the owner on August 2, 2007; $25,000 was being held in escrow until the land was cleared as part of the settlement agreement, but was released last week.

“Also, an independent report prepared by a consulting engineer for SSCAFCA shows that moving the dam site to another location would have cost the taxpayers $5.472 million because of the need to buy additional land and remove additional soil.  The estimated cost to construct the dam at the planned site, including the razing of the house, is $4.593 million.  This is a saving to the public of $879,000.”

While Stoliker noted that “It is unfortunate that this situation occurred,” he points out that subdivision and platting of land in Rio Rancho “occurred years ago and no allowance can be made for flood control when an individual builds on a single lot.  While the law protects the rights of this type of developer, it complicates the planning process from the governmental side.  If property owners choose to build before the land can be purchased for a public purpose, there is no way to stop them.”

In a telephone interview Friday, Stoliker felt he had to respond “so the public knows we acted in a prompt and prudent manner. I believe that SSCAFCA’s actions, on a very, very tough situation, were proper and actually saved the taxpayers money.”

Click here to read Stoliker's op-ed.

===============================================================================================