Doña Ana County commissioners consider sunsetting spaceport GRT as schools and projects face uncertainty

Doña Ana County commissioners spent much of their April 7 work session weighing whether to pursue sunsetting the county’s spaceport gross‑receipts tax (GRT), an excise levied originally by voters in 2007 that currently directs three‑quarters of receipts to Spaceport America capital and bond payments and 25% to local STEM programs for area school districts.

Interim Deputy County Manager Lucille Latr told the commission the county began collecting the 0.25% spaceport GRT in January 2009 after Ordinance 227‑07 and a companion special election. “FY25 net collections were $14.98 million,” Latr said, and of that total roughly $11.24 million (75%) supported spaceport‑related activities while about $3.75 million (25%) went to school‑directed programs. She said an interception of $4.4 million of the 75% share was being paid to the New Mexico Finance Authority to meet bond obligations and that cumulative collections since 2009 total about $160 million; projected receipts through fiscal 2029 (not including an anticipated one‑time bump tied to a private project called Project Jupiter) raise the expected total toward roughly $233 million.

Why it matters: the GRT has been the primary local capital funding source for Spaceport America infrastructure and also supports STEM programming for Los Cruces Public Schools (LCPS) and neighboring districts. Commissioners said those 25% school funds — cited in county records as directed by resolution 2009‑08 to Challenger Learning Center and district STEM efforts — are meaningful to local schools and some smaller charter programs.

The debate centered on three linked questions: how much the county should continue to subsidize spaceport capital after the county’s GRT pledge and related bonds mature in FY29; whether the county can or should extinguish the county’s portion of the tax prior to that date; and how to preserve school program funding if the GRT is ended. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to return with better fiscal detail and school compliance materials before the board decides on any formal next step.

Several commissioners expressed concern that the tax falls primarily on Doña Ana County residents and that the 2007 referendum was narrowly decided. One commissioner argued the board should place any final decision before voters: voters “should decide” whether the tax continues, the commissioner said. Other members urged caution and asked staff to consult with state officials and Sierra County, the other jurisdiction that contributes the tax, before taking action.

County staff outlined immediate follow‑up steps the board directed: request updated annual reports from the three beneficiary school districts (LCPS, Hatch and Gadsden) documenting how the 25% school share has been used and whether programs meet the board’s previously stated expectations; confirm the intercept amount and remaining bond payoff schedule (county documents list outstanding principal of about $18.1 million plus roughly $327,000 in interest for FY29 bond maturities); and open conversations with Secretary of Economic Development (Secretary Black), the governor’s office and Sierra County about state capital funding and future regional contributions.

Staff also highlighted procedural constraints. Legal staff and county practice indicate the county itself cannot unilaterally cancel the GRT by simple ordinance and that an additional election (referendum) is required to sunset the tax if the board or voters choose that route. Staff added that the county could raise unrestricted county‑wide GRT by up to 0.06% without a public referendum (a change the commission could enact) and suggested that as one of several possible paths to preserve school funding if the spaceport GRT were reduced.

What remains unresolved and next steps: commissioners asked staff to gather the missing school compliance reports (the county’s finance office identified 2024 reporting as incomplete), provide a clearer breakdown of how school‑directed funds were spent (salaries vs. program‑level outcomes), and develop options the commission could consider — including preparing a voter referendum and alternative uses of a county GRT. The board also asked staff to contact Sierra County and Secretary Black to better understand likely state and regional funding choices.

The board did not vote on any change to the GRT during the work session; instead it directed staff to return with the requested documentation and suggested possible stakeholder meetings and a public engagement plan before any ballot measure or ordinance is drafted. The county’s next formal consideration of this topic is expected at a future work session after staff compiles the requested information.

Ending: Commissioners closed the discussion by asking staff to prepare options and to return with the school reports and state‑level outreach results to inform whether the board places any measure before voters or pursues other funding mechanisms.