Gross Receipts Tax priorities

When the Gross Receipts Tax increase was put on the ballot and subsequently approved by voters in 2024, the description on what it would fund was (purposefully) vague:

Shall the City of Las Cruces impose a municipal gross receipts tax in the amount of three hundred twenty-five thousands of one percent (0.3250%) the revenues of which shall be used for funding capital improvements and maintenance for public safety, streets, parks, and other public facilities and critical infrastructure?

At the city council meeting prior to the vote on whether to put this question on the ballot, I and others implored council to consider separating the question and the subsequent windfall, asking voters to approve public safety, infrastructure and parks as individual ballot questions, rather than lumping them together. Let the voters decide priorities.

If I remember correctly, one councilor officially made the same suggestion, but that was the end of the conversation and the motion passed to keep it combined on the ballot.

Now the city council will soon decide on how to spend the money they’ve already generated and future taxed revenue. Annually, the city anticipates the 0.325% GRT increase will result in approximately $11 million in additional revenue into the city’s general fund.

Let’s focus on the “public safety” aspect of the ballot question. After months of advocacy for relief from exploding crime in Las Cruces, the answer was to put “public safety” on the ballot question, implying that we would be supporting our law enforcement officers in funding equipment, training and personnel, with the hope that we would eventually see real change in the crime stats of Las Cruces and recruitment efforts to get more cops on the streets to combat retail thefts, juvenile crime and drug-related offenses.

That was the distinct implication for supporting the GRT increase because it included “public safety”.

Predictably, now that the city is deciding on how to spend its windfall, several on council and many vocal residents are trying to shift the public safety narrative away from supporting our police department to more effectively enforce laws and reduce crimes occurring against our residents and align it instead with street lighting, sidewalks and public spaces like parks and recreation centers.

Of course, these are all also necessary, but they are covered under the other verbiage within the GRT increase already and public spaces that aren’t inherently safe from drugs, vandalism and crime aren’t effective anyway. Once again, I get the distinct impression that supporting our officers is a political stance when it absolutely should not be.

Our city is growing. Investments in all areas are needed to include and encourage our youth to seek healthy recreation. Old infrastructure needs to be updated and maintained.

But if we don’t have enough officers, or training opportunities for them, or cars that aren’t constantly breaking down for them to respond to calls in, then the new park in your neighborhood isn’t supportive of kids and families as it was intended, when it becomes a breeding ground for illegal activity, drugs and violence.

Las Cruces needs balance. The GRT ballot question implied that’s what we would be getting – public safety, infrastructure and parks. Balanced.

Voters’ memories are not so short that you can now convince them public safety didn’t mean supporting our police department with the resources they need to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for the other items on the ballot and the city as a whole.

Shawna Pfeiffer is a life-long Dona Ana County Resident, graduate of NMSU, small business owner, hobby farmer, dog-lover, outdoor enthusiast and mother to two young children. She can be reached at srpfeiffer1@gmail.com.