By Laura London, Alamogordo Daily News
Original publication date: Aug. 10, 2011

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. — During its regular meeting Tuesday, the Alamogordo City Commission reconsidered a proposal from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration to resolve the PSAP consolidation issue, a point of contention between local officials and the state for nearly a decade.

At the regular meeting July 26, commissioners voted 4 to 3 to turn down the proposal. The proposal was on the city’s agenda again Tuesday because one commissioner felt he voted incorrectly.

The agenda report states Mayor Pro Tem Ed Cole telephoned city manager Mark Roath the morning of July 27 to say he misunderstood the motion and asked that the item be put on the next regular meeting agenda for reconsideration.

Cole told commissioners Tuesday why he wanted to reconsider.

“My misunderstanding was that I did not realize the question was worded in a negative form, so I voted ‘yes,'” Cole said. “I should have voted differently, but I would like to reconsider this this evening so I will have a chance to change my vote. I made a mistake.”

Commissioner Robert Rentschler moved to reconsider the item, and the commission launched into a discussion on whether that should be allowed and what rules the commission was following. Commissioners Aaron Rance, Joe Ferguson and Josh Rardin, all against accepting the proposal, adamantly opposed reconsidering but lost on their vote against Rentschler’s motion.

Before the vote, commissioners entered a spirited discussion on the rules for reconsideration. Rance wanted to know what the rules were.

City attorney Stephen Thies said the Alamogordo City Commission has never adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, so the commission can reconsider its vote and no rules apply.

Rance said since the city doesn’t have rules on how it conducts meetings, he felt the commission couldn’t go further until it adopts some rules. Thies said never adopting Robert’s Rules to regulate its meetings doesn’t invalidate the city’s meetings.

“So, to take it one step further, how far back can we go for reconsideration?” Rance asked.

Thies said they would have to look at each individual issue. He said if some change resulted from an action in a meeting, then that action couldn’t be reconsidered. For example, he said, a zoning issue couldn’t be brought back after someone had moved forward on a project based on the city’s zoning decision.

Mayor Ron Griggs said almost any item could be brought back and reconsidered, as long as no actions have resulted that depend on that item. He said in this instance, a commissioner made a mistake in his vote and wanted to rectify it.

“The guy has a lot of gumption to sit there and say he made a mistake,” Griggs said. “So I commend the mayor pro tem for doing that.”

Ferguson agreed with Rance, saying they should have the city manager check into which version of Robert’s Rules of Order would best serve the city. He said he hadn’t known commissioners could bring items back on the agenda to reconsider. If he had, he said, perhaps he would have kept bringing his park before the commission; Ferguson has tried unsuccessfully to get the commission’s approval for a park in his district since 2008.

“That’s not the right thing to do, but if we’re going to play with no rules, maybe that’s what I need to do,” Ferguson said.

Rentschler said the commission must do what is in taxpayers’ best interest. He said it would cost Alamogordo citizens $1 million not to accept the DFA’s offer.

“Nobody likes what this was about,” Rentschler said. “Everybody thinks that we got shorted in the deal.”

Rentschler advocated pursuing legislation to remedy the situation.

The public safety answering point, or PSAP, is where emergency calls for fire, police or ambulance are taken by dispatchers. A surcharge is placed on all customers’ phone bills that pays for this service, and these funds go to the state Enhanced 911 Fund, which is administered by the DFA. Alamogordo and Otero County haven’t received any of these funds since their dispute with the DFA began.

After the state Legislature amended the state’s Enhanced 911 Act and began collecting for its Enhanced 911 Fund to make improvements in emergency communications, the DFA adopted its own rule that requires one PSAP per county. Alamogordo and Otero County wanted to maintain separate PSAPs to ensure they would always have a backup in case one went down, but the DFA would not release PSAP funding unless the city and county consolidate their PSAPs.

Roath outlined the proposal the city and Otero County received in a May 24 letter from DFA Secretary Richard May. The proposal lets the county and city each keep their respective PSAP, but each would be funded at 50 percent from the E911 Fund. The city would also be required to bring its PSAP up to state standards, paying 100 percent of upgrade costs up front before it can apply for reimbursement from the DFA for those costs.

The agenda report states the E911 Fund will reimburse the city up to 50 percent of all preapproved expenditures allowable under the Enhanced 911 Act and DFA regulations. If the city or county fails to pay its bills to E911 equipment and service vendors, the DFA will have cause to cancel its E911 grant agreement with the city or county.

Roath said DFA will carefully scrutinize expenditures to make sure the cost of maintaining two PSAPs is not unacceptably greater than the cost of keeping one, consolidated PSAP.

The DFA would enter separate grant agreements with the city and county, according to the agenda report, and only expenditures incurred after execution of the grant agreement will be eligible for reimbursement.

Copyright © 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy