Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

SPACEPORT AMERICA REGIONAL SPACEPORT DISTRICT (SARSD)

SPECIAL BOARD MEETING


June 27, 2014
855 Van Patten, Truth or Consequences, NM
The meeting was called to order by Director Frances Luna at 2:06 PM.
Attendees and participants recited the Pledge of Allegiance
Roll call of members was conducted by Aaron Prescott, NMSA staff
Director Duarte-Benevidez not present
Director Armijo present
Director Luna present
Director Rawson present (arrived at 216 PM)
Director LaFont present
Director McMillan present
Quorum was established.
NMSA staff present was Chris Anderson-Executive Director, Ryan Noble-General Counsel
Aaron Prescott-Business Operations Manager, Bill Gutman- Technical Operations Manager.
Members of the public present: Sandra Whitehead, Ruben Olivas, J uan Fuentes, Mike Kertesz,
Susan and Bill Buhler, David Pato (Sierra County Attorney) J ames Pendill, J ason Buhl, Nathan
Gustin (SC Roads Director), J eff Richter, Sherry Fletcher, Bill Slettom, Hans Townsend
A motion was made by Director Armijo to move public comment up on the agenda, seconded by
Ditrector LaFont. Vote was unanimous.
Comment by Ruben Olivias: He strongly encouraged passage of the resolution that is on the
agenda because the City of TorC needs the economic development.
Comment by J uan Fuentes: He also encouraged passage. TorC has had a decline in GRT revenue
and the project will help it get back ahead. Currently, there is good cooperation between the NM
Tourism Dept. and the city to get ready for launches from the spaceport.
J eff Richter, T or C City Commissioner: It is imperative to build the Spaceport Visitor Center. It
will be the engine for local economic development. He just returned from South Dakota and
went to the visitor center at the Crazy Horse Memorial. It provides economic benefits, and the
spaceport visitor center will do the same thing here. The city has been paying GRT, it is late in
the game, and this will help the area.
THESE DRAFT MINUTES ARE NOT THE OFFICIAL MINUTES AND
ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SARSD BOARD
Sandra Whitehead, Mayor of TorC: The city has been looking forward to this for a long time. It
will bring tourism. The spaceport is a great asset and this will help bring attention to the city and
county.
This concluded public comment.
Approval of minute: A motion to approve both sets of minutes (12/4/14 and 1/24/14) by Director
Armijo, seconded by Director LaFont. Approval was unanimous.
Christine Anderson began her presentation
Spaceport Status: The spaceport passed the FAA annual inspection. The staff is continuing to
perform weekly tabletop drills to prepare for full operations. The new spaceport Front Gate
Security Station construction contract was awarded to Highland Enterprises of Las Cruces, NM.
Space Launch Status: Spaceport tenant SpaceX has spent approximately $2M thus far in
mobilizing the site. The Falcon 9R (F9R) launches are expected to begin at the spaceport in the
next few months. UP Aerospace is expected to launch in October. NMSA is in discussions with
other potential customers.
Anderson showed a SpaceX launch video.
Anderson discussed spaceport related jobs. Over 1300 jobs have been generated to date.
Approximately $12M gross receipts tax revenue has been paid by the spaceport to the state.
Virgin Galactic has eleven staff in Las Cruces now and is expecting to grow to about 30+staff
by the fall. SpaceX has employed approximately 40+local people to help mobilize the site. The
Highland Security Gate contract is expected to employ about 40+local people. Sixty referrals for
local business support have been given to spaceport customers.
The southern access road RFP is expected to be released in August with an award in October.
The BLM is reviewing the design and the draft Environmental Impact Assessment. Dona Ana
County Road Department is responsible for the road design and construction.
Director Armijo asked, what stabilized earth product is under consideration? Director Anderson
did not know and will refer the question to DAC Road Department.
Director Rawson who is also a Doa Ana County Commissioner confirmed that the contract
award is expected in October.
Director Armijo directed a question to the Sierra County Roads Superintendent, Nathan Gustin,
in the audience: what is Highland Construction doing at the site? Mr Gustin did not know.
Director Anderson responded: They are constructing the access control station. Director Armijo
had not previously heard of this activity and asked if the county had been notified. Director
Anderson agreed to check on this.
Anderson described the Spaceport Visitor Experience and highlighted the need to build the
Visitor Center in Truth or Consequences. She described the current effort to seek at $6.5M loan
from the New Mexico Finance Authority to buy the land (that has already been selected via
competitive RFP process two years ago), construct the building, complete the landscaping,
perform the architectural and construction administration functions, and mitigate any
archeological sites as applicable.
The proposed sources of loan payment are the Excess Pledged Revenue and Virgin Galactic
lease payments. NMSA is seeking SARSD Board approval to use GRT Excess Pledged Revenue
in the proposed resolution.
Proposed Resolution SARSD 2014-002 was introduced.
Director Armijo voiced concern with regard to the agenda and hand-out materials. They were not
sent to him at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. In the future, he wants 72-hour notice. He
asked what the status of the property on which the VC is to be built? Has it been bought?
Director Anderson said, yes, NMSA has a contract for the land. The acquisition process was
done competitively. Director Armijo asked what the sunset is in the RFP for the property?
Director Anderson said that NMSA has a contract in place on the land that has been extended for
purchase. She explained that in order to begin construction in November, NMSA needs the loan
to be approved. Director Armijo asked about the protest on the land purchase RFP that occurred
two years ago. Director Anderson said that the property selected first through the competitive
RFP process was protested and upon further research by NMSA, the protest was upheld because
the land parcel had a zoning problem that rendered it not usable for the intended purpose of a
visitor center. NMSA then went back to the other offered parcels in the RFP process and selected
the second one on the list. Director Armijo said it was not zoning, but rather that a patent issue
that caused the parcel not to be suitable. Director Anderson agreed the root of the problem was a
patent issue. Director Armijo stated that the original land would have been cheaper. Director
Anderson agreed the original selection was cheaper but the protest was adjudicated and sustained.
The original land selection was not usable for a spaceport visitor center due to the patent. That
was two years ago, now the construction drawings are base-lined on the current property.
Question from Director McMillan: Commissioner Rawson alluded that Doa Ana County will let
the contract for the southern road in October. How long will it take for the work? Director
Rawson said 10-12 months. Director McMillan asked if this is phase 1, what phase 2 will be.
Director Rawson said at the end of Phase 1, we will have a good dirt road. Phase 2 will apply
millings and make it better. Eventually a phase 3 may be needed. Director McMillan asked what
the funding status is. Director Rawson said that Phase1 and 2 are funded as long as construction
costs remain stable. Director McMillan asked what phase 3 would be. Director Rawson said
overlay of millings at the completion of phase 2 would be inch thick but they need to get to 2
inches thick. We need to evaluate the use of the road before we ask for more money. Should the
use drive the design or vice versa? Director Rawson said Phase 1 will make road usable in all
weather.
Director Armijo said the current road design is far superior to the previous version. Sierra
County is mostly concerned about the base. There was a question for Sierra County Roads
Superintendent Nathan Gustin: What does usable mean? Director Rawson said everyone agrees
that phase 1 will keep water from destroying the road and make it drivable by various vehicles.
Mr. Gustin asked where the -inch overlay number came from; inch is usually the particle
size, and 4-6 inches is needed for a good road.
At this point, the Board took up consideration of the proposed resolution. Director Armijo had a
written statement to be considered. He favors the Visitor Center, but some things bother him,
mainly about the site selection process. He asked the Board to not pass the resolution, and wants
the original TorC property to be reconsidered. He read his statement into the record. The
statement is attached.
Director Anderson stated that the evaluation of proposals for the land purchase two years ago
was done under procurement code, not the Open Meetings Act. A different set of requirements
apply. Director Armijo used the TorC hospital development process as an example. He thinks
there should have been public input in the selection. Director Anderson said there was no clear
community choice for location, so NMSA had to go to the competitive RFP process. NMSA
received 5 proposals. The selection committee visited each of them. Initially the site offered by
the City of TorC was selected, but one bidder protested the award. The protest was sustained
because of the patent on the land at the time that rendered the land to not be usable for a visitor
center. J uan Fuentes stated that the parcel in question is now zoned transitional and can be
used in various ways. Anderson to Mr. Fuentes: What happened? Mr. Fuentes stated that the
patent whereby the land was transferred to the city was an issue. Director LaFont said the board
should act on the resolution. This is a waste of time. Director McMillan said who are those
opposed to the resolution, and why are they opposed? Director Armijo said they want to save
money for the project. Director McMillan said, do we even know whether TorC still has the land
available? Anderson said NMSA decided on the location two years ago. Director McMillan
asked why is this coming up now? It would appear that NMFA may not even make a loan for
the former property. Anderson said the issue was adjudicated two years ago, and we could not
award the selection for the city parcel. We researched it, and it could not be used for the purpose
of building a visitor center. The patent issue may now be cleared up, but at the time of the
procurement, NMSA had no choice but to go on to the next bidder. The Visitor Center design is
based on the current location. Any change would delay the project and cost more money for
redesign. Director Rawson said we should entertain public input at this time. Director Luna
clarified that the issue that prevented use of the city parcel was not zoning, but rather a patent
issue that restricted its use.
Public comment followed.
Hans Townsend from the TorC Chamber of Commerce: This has been a thorn in the side since it
was done. When the original choice was made, the protest was upheld based on the belief that
the patent that was in place precluded use for the Visitor Center. Complete records could not be
found. A clarifying letter was found later, so he believes the decision was made based on
mistaken information. The current site is less favorable for the community. The location best
suited to promote economic development is the original city site. TorC is perceived as scruffy,
but the advantages of the city parcel should not take it away based on a mistake. Mr. Armijo:
diversionary clause in the original land patent (the clause that precluded use of the land for the
Visitor Center) had expired. He asked Mr. Fuentes for a copy of the letter from the BLM to that
effect which was believed to exist. The letter was found eventually and it indeed states that the
diversionary clause is invalid. This letter was received in 1984. In 2013, a letter was solicited
from Bill Childress, Director of the Las Cruces District Office (BLM) which confirmed the
intent of the 1984 letter.
Bill Buhler has been an attorney in TorC for 50 years. He started the museum and a bank. Use of
the city property for the Visitor Center would help downtown TorC that it needs, and it would
save money.
Mike Kertesz believes that regulations were violated in land selection process. Director Rawson
asked who issued the RFP. Director Anderson: NMSA. There is crucial information missing
from Director Armijos statement, which is the legal determination about sustaining of the
protest. It should have been in the packet. Director Armijo: who prepared that? Director
Anderson: It was Wade J ackson, who was and is the Economic Development Department
General Counsel. Director Rawson: The SARSD boards role is in how tax money is to be spent.
The decision on the location of the Visitor Center decision is not the SARSD boards to make. It
is not in their purview to decide where to build. Director Anderson: The SARSD boards role is
to determine if it is acceptable for GRT funds to be used for the Visitor Center. If this is not
acceptable, there may be no more options to build it. This is critical. The location was selected
two years ago, we believe correctly. If the SARSD board approves, we will then go to NMSA
board, then to the NM Finance Authority Board. If the loan is approved, money will be available
around November 1. We want to have the building completed by the end of 2015. Director
Armijo: he thought there is money for two welcome centers. He asked for proposed resolution to
be read, which was done by Mr. Noble, NMSA General Counsel.
Director Luna: what about the money that had been set aside for the project: Director Anderson:
We have the design, but do not have money for land and building. Director Luna: at the previous
meeting, we discussed that money from GRT was to be used as bridge funds for operations.
Director Anderson: We will not start payment of the loan for one year, and by then we expect to
be generating sufficient revenue to cover operations. Director Luna: what if revenue does not
ramp-up as expected? Director Anderson: There are no guarantees, but VG and SpaceX are
moving along with their programs, and we are working hard to find new customers, and expect
success with several prospects. We now have items to be used in the VC in storage that are not
now generating revenue. Without the building, were missing out on revenue. Director Luna: was
there an appraisal on the current land? Director Anderson: Yes. However, had the protest not
occurred, we would be using the City of TorC parcel. Director Luna: why did we not revisit the
city property after the protest? Director Anderson: the protest was adjudicated and the protest
upheld, we had little recourse under the RFP process but to go forward with the other property.
Director Luna: Her main concern is that if VG is not flying, there will be a $6.5M loan
outstanding for the Visitor Center. The GRT potentially could be rescinded. Should we tie
ourselves to the unknown? Director Anderson: The VC is critical. Even when VG is flying, we
need it as a revenue source. Director Luna: The city had volunteered an interim location for the
VC. Director Armijo: how much was appropriated for the VC. The city had been told previously
that money had been set aside. Director Anderson asked Aaron Prescott to respond: initially
NMSA had budgeted $500k for each of two welcome centers, and carried it in the budget until it
was realized that that amount money would be inadequate. Director Armijo: the difference in
cost of the land could go to the welcome center itself. Mr. Prescott: If we were to go back to the
other location now, the land savings would be more than consumed by the additional costs of
changing the design to fit the other location.
A call was made for a motion to adopt the resolution. A motion was made by Director McMillan,
seconded by Mr. LaFont. Director Rawson offered some amendments and also stated that he
would have liked to have had the meeting information package sooner. Amendments offered: In
the third whereas: since this is the funding body, he would like to strike the language on the
location and leave location selection to the Authority. The proposed change was captured by Mr.
Noble. Director McMillan agreed that would be reasonable provided that the amendment would
not cause the NMFA to alter their position on granting the loan. Director Anderson: the location
will be specified in the loan application, so this should not jeopardize the loan. Director Luna: if
a VC is developed in Hatch in the future, it would make sense to leave the resolution language as
is on this point and do another resolution when required in the future. Director Rawson: the
reason for the proposed change is to clarify role of SARSD versus NMSA. Director Rawson
believes the change would leave NMSA with more leeway. Director Luna: the location already is
in TorC, so the point is moot. Director McMillan: Director Rawsons point is well taken, but the
resolution does not make the determination. At that point, Director Rawson rescinded his request
for the change.
Director Rawson next proposed an amendment to add language to make clear purpose of SARSD.
The board members agreed that this would be a good idea. A motion was made by Director
McMillan and seconded by Director LaFont to accept this second amendment proposed by
Director Rawson. All members present voted in favor of the amendment except Director Armijo
who voted against. The motion was passed.
The amended resolution is attached.
Director Rawson then asked about rescinding the verbiage about existing conflicts in the
resolution. He asked if there are any known conflicts. Mr. Noble said we know of none, but the
clause is there in case should something be discovered up in the future. This is common language
in resolutions of this type. Director Rawson asked about the apparent discrepancy $6.5M
mentioned initially versus $8.5M later. Mr. Noble: We believe the cost will be within $6.5, but
NMFA will have processing costs that must be added to the loan principal and that will not be
known until closing. NMSA chose a conservative amount to avoid the need to reconvene
meetings of all three boards. Mr. Prescott: there is no padding in the amount. A big part of the
reason for the difference is the conservatism of NMFA. They want a 1.3 coverage ratio. 1.3 x
$6.5M gets us to $8.5M, but the larger amount is used only for their analytical calculations.
Director Rawson asked if anyone else on the board had seen these types of transaction. No one
offered that they had. Mr. Prescott: a conservative coverage ratio has been applied to all of our
and other agency bond funding, but the actual factor may change depending on size of the
transaction and the risk.
Director McMillan made a motion to vote on the resolution; it was seconded by Mr. LaFont. All
members present voted for the resolution except for Director Armijo who voted against. Motion
was passed.
A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Director LaFont and seconded by Director
McMillan. The vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 342.
Approved:
Director Francis Luna
Attachment 1: Statement Read into the Record by Board Member Walter Armijo
The County and the Authority executed a Resolution in October 2010, recognizing Sierra
Countys significant share in its support of the Spaceport, between taking all the steps required to
pass the Regional Spaceport Gross Receipts Tax, advocating for the Gross Receipts Tax, being a
founding member of the Spaceport District, and otherwise supporting the project in a number of
ways. Further, in that Resolution, both parties recognized the importance in treating the County
in such a manner as would reflect its many contributions. The Authority requested the Sierra
County manager nominate its members on March 15, 2011, and tasked the committee with
nominating up to two (2) sites on J uly 7, 2011. The Welcome Center Site Selection Committee
submitted five (5) sites on J uly 31 , 2011 for the Authoritys consideration. The Authority.
however, concluded there was no clear community choice and instead decided to issue a
Request for Proposals.
The NMSA issued the Request for Proposals on May 17, 2012, and evaluated four
proposals in response to its request. Upon reviewing the proposals, the source selection
committee recommended contract award to the City of Truth or Consequences because it was the
best value for the State, the [b]est location for the community, the [p]ad [was] ready, and
because of its [c]lose access and visibility to 1-25. The cost of the City of Truth or
Consequences property was S 151,195.00, which is $748,805 less than the next least expensive
property, and a full $894,245.00 cheaper than the property ultimately selected by the Spaceport
Authority.
The second-ranked offeror protested the award of the site to the City of Truth or
Consequences, and based on the claim that the proposed parcel from the City of Truth or
Consequences had a U.S. Patent filed in 1959 that purportedly prevents the use of the land for a
welcome center, the NMSA Source Selection Committee reconvened to evaluate the three (3)
remaining proposals, and elected to spend an additional $894,245.00 for the property proposed
by Ashbaugh Construction, with a budget impact of approximately $63,000.00 a year in lease
payments.
As a preliminary matter, the residents of Truth or Consequences and Sierra County have
been thoroughly disenfranchised by the Authoritys selection of a site for the Sierra County
Welcome Center. There was a complete and thorough lack of public participation and public
hearings on the proposed site of the Welcome Center, and it does not appear that the NMSA
Source Selection Committee complied with its obligations under the New Mexico Open
Meetings Act, NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-1 (1999).
The New Mexico Attorney Generals Office has had occasion to consider whether the
meetings of a site selection committee of a body subject to the Open Meetings Act is also subject
to the Open Meetings Act. Specifically, the Sierra Vista Hospital Study Committee was tasked
with making a non-binding recommendation to the governing body of the Sierra Vista Hospital
in relation to site selection. The Attorney General explained that by delegating authority to the
committee to narrow the choices of potential offerors for the governing boards consideration,
the governing board vests the committee with decision-making authority and subjects its
meetings to the Open Meetings Acts requirements. See also OMA Compliance Guide, p. 11.
Based on this concern, I have copied the New Mexico Attorney General on this memorandum so
that the New Mexico Attorney Generals Office may review whether the meetings of the NMSA
Source Selection Committee were subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Open
Meetings Compliance Guide explains that, [i]n most cases, if a violation is found, the Attorney
General will enforce the Act by first advising the public body that, in his opinion, the actions
taken at a particular meeting . . . were not in compliance with the Act and are consequently not
valid. N.M. Atty Gen. OMA Compliance Guide, p. 43 (6th ed. 2008). For this basis, it would
be inappropriate for this Board to authorize submission of an application for a loan to the New
Mexico Finance Authority where the New Mexico Attorney General may subsequently conclude
that the selection of the site is invalid.
Even were the Attorney Generals Office to determine that there has not been a violation
of the Open Meetings Act, the Spaceport Authority was derelict in its duty and responsibility to
solicit public input before authorizing such a substantial expenditure, which provides a separate
and independent basis for declining to authorize submission of an application for a loan to the
New Mexico Finance Authority for this property.
Additionally, the public was not sufficiently apprised of whether the Spaceport Authority
would be considering the Sierra County Welcome Center site or the Doa Ana County Welcome
Center site at its August 1, 2012. Board meeting, so that they would be permitted to attend and
listen to the deliberations of the Authority. Specifically, the agenda listed the item generically as
Welcome Center Site Selection, without specifying whether that selection was for the Sierra
County or Doa Ana County site. The Open Meetings Act requires, in pertinent part, that
[m]eeting notices [] include an agenda containing a list of specific items of business to be
discussed or transacted at the meeting or information on how the public may obtain a copy of
such an agenda. NMSA 1978, 10-15-1 (2013) (emphasis added). There was simply not
sufficient detail in the Authoritys agenda so as to apprise the public as to the specific business it
was to consider. Again, if the Attorney Generals Office determines a violation to have occurred,
the Authoritys award of the proposal will be invalidated.
Moreover, the public was not sufficiently apprised that the Authority was going to revoke
its award of the site location to the City of Truth or Consequences, and award the welcome
center to an offeror whose property is $894,245.00 more expensive than the location previously
selected by the Authority. The September 24, 2012, agenda generically stated that the Authority
would be considering the T or C Welcome Center Award Update and T or C Welcome Center
Award Recommendation. The lack of specificity failed to inform the public that the Authority
intended to revoke its prior award of the Welcome Center to the City of Truth or Consequences.
The public was thoroughly denied the opportunity to attend and listen to the deliberations
regarding the revocation of the award of the Welcome Center to the City of Truth or
Consequences, and the opportunity to comment or share information with the Authority as may
have facilitated its review of the protest regarding the property proposed by the City of Truth or
Consequences. In fact, despite the Authoritys determination upholding the protest on the basis
that the proposed parcel from the City of Truth or Consequences had a U.S. Patent filed in 1959
that purportedly prevents the use of the land for a welcome center, the City of Truth or
Consequences has a letter from the Federal Government stating that the City would not be
prohibited from utilizing the property as a Welcome Center. This debacle has the potential to
cost the taxpayers $894,245.00.
In addition to my request for an investigation by the New Mexico Attorney General into
the violations of the Open Meetings Act as detailed herein, I respectfully request that this Board
deny the request for approval of the Resolution for Loan Financing of the Visitor Center. Not
only was there an exponential increase in the cost of the property selected from that offered by
the City of Truth or Consequences, but the process appears tainted, the public disenfranchised,
and the proposed award may well be invalidated by the Attorney Generals Office. I would also
request that an agenda item be added to the District Boards next agenda requesting the
Authoritys reconsideration of the property offered by the City of Truth or Consequences.
Attachment 2: Proposed RESOLUTION NO. 2014-002
AUTHORIZING THE PLEDGE OF EXCESS PLEDGED REVENUES TO OBTAIN
FINANCING FROM THE NEW MEXICO FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR THE SPACEPORT
VISITOR CENTER
WHEREAS, the New Mexico Spaceport Authority (Governmental Unit) is a qualified
entity under the New Mexico Finance Authority Act, Sections 6-21-1 through 6-21-31, NMSA
1978 (Act), and the New Mexico Spaceport Authority Board (Governing Body) is
authorized to borrow funds and/or issue bonds for financing of public projects for benefit of the
Governmental Unit; and the Spaceport America Regional Spaceport District (SARSD) is
empowered to cause the timely and efficient delivery of Regional Spaceport Gross Receipts Tax
revenues to Spaceport America projects in coordination with the Governmental Unit; and
WHEREAS, the New Mexico Finance Authority (Authority) has instituted a program
for financing of projects from the public project revolving fund created under the Act and has
developed an application procedure whereby the Governing Body may submit an application
(Application) for financial assistance from the Authority for public projects; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body intends to undertake the financing, planning, designing,
engineering, construction, construction administration, and purchase of real property in Truth or
Consequences, NM for a spaceport facility, the Spaceport Visitor Center in Truth or
Consequences, NM (Project), for the benefit of the Governmental Unit and the citizens of New
Mexico; and
WHEREAS, the financing of the Project shall provide the Governmental Unit with
proceeds not less than $6,500,000.00 (six million five hundred thousand) dollars, that the
financing of the Project shall be payable out of revenues acceptable to the Authority, potentially
including revenues from the Ground Rent and Facilities Rent as defined in the Lease Agreement
with Virgin Galactic for the Gateway to Space, and/or potentially including revenues from the
distribution to the Governmental Unit of Excess Pledged Revenues according to the Governing
Body Resolution of March 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the terms of any financing contemplated pursuant to the Application must
be in compliance with the Spaceport Development Act, Sections 58-31-1 through 58-31-17,
NMSA 1978 (SDA''), including submission for review and approval of the State Board of
Finance following Authority approval,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SARSD:
Section 1. In connection with any financing between the Authority and the Governing
Body in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000.00 (eight million five hundred thousand) dollars for
the purpose of building a Spaceport Visitor Center, the SARSD hereby agrees to a pledge by the
Governing Body of gross receipts taxes made available to the Governmental Unit by the SARSD
pursuant to law, including any available Excess Pledged Revenues, for the purpose of paying
amounts due under such financing, and agrees that such pledge will not be rescinded or
terminated at any time such financing remains outstanding.
Section 2. All acts and resolutions in conflict with this resolution are hereby rescinded,
annulled and repealed.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSES APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________________ , 20___
SPACEPORT AMERICA REGIONAL SPACEPORT DISTRICT
By ________________________ _
(Seal)
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Authorized Officer
Attachment 3: RESOLUTION NO. 2014-002 as amended and passed
AUTHORIZING THE PLEDGE OF EXCESS PLEDGED REVENUES TO OBTAIN
FINANCING FROM THE NEW MEXICO FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR THE SPACEPORT
VISITOR CENTER
WHEREAS, the Spaceport America Regional Spaceport District (the District) of the
State of New Mexico (the State) was created under the Regional Spaceport District Act,
Section 5-16-1 et seq., NMSA 1978 (the Spaceport District Act); and
WHEREAS, the Spaceport Authority (the Authority) of the State was created under the
Spaceport Development Act, 58-31-1 et seq., NMSA 1978 (the Spaceport Development Act);
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Doa Ana County Ordinance No. 227 A-07 and Sierra County
Ordinance No. 08-002, each of these counties has adopted a county regional spaceport gross
receipts tax in the amount of one-fourth of one percent (0.25%) as authorized by Section 7-20E-
25, NMSA 1978; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5-16-13, NMSA 1978, seventy-five percent (75%) of
the regional spaceport gross receipts tax revenues received by the governmental units that create
the District must be used by the District for the financing, planning, designing, engineering and
construction of a spaceport facility (the Pledged Revenues); and
WHEREAS, the New Mexico Spaceport Authority (Governmental Unit) is a qualified
entity under the New Mexico Finance Authority Act, Sections 6-21-1 through 6-21-31, NMSA
1978 (Act), and the New Mexico Spaceport Authority Board (Governing Body) is
authorized to borrow funds and/or issue bonds for financing of public projects for benefit of the
Governmental Unit; and the Spaceport America Regional Spaceport District (SARSD) is
empowered to cause the timely and efficient delivery of Regional Spaceport Gross Receipts Tax
revenues to Spaceport America projects in coordination with the Governmental Unit; and
WHEREAS, the New Mexico Finance Authority (Authority) has instituted a program
for financing of projects from the public project revolving fund created under the Act and has
developed an application procedure whereby the Governing Body may submit an application
(Application) for financial assistance from the Authority for public projects; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body intends to undertake the financing, planning, designing,
engineering, construction, construction administration, and purchase of real property in Truth or
Consequences, NM for a spaceport facility, the Spaceport Visitor Center in Truth or
Consequences, NM (Project), for the benefit of the Governmental Unit and the citizens of New
Mexico; and
WHEREAS, the financing of the Project shall provide the Governmental Unit with
proceeds not less than $6,500,000.00 (six million five hundred thousand) dollars, that the
financing of the Project shall be payable out of revenues acceptable to the Authority, potentially
including revenues from the Ground Rent and Facilities Rent as defined in the Lease Agreement
with Virgin Galactic for the Gateway to Space, and/or potentially including revenues from the
distribution to the Governmental Unit of Excess Pledged Revenues according to the Governing
Body Resolution of March 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the terms of any financing contemplated pursuant to the Application must
be in compliance with the Spaceport Development Act, Sections 58-31-1 through 58-31-17,
NMSA 1978 (SDA''), including submission for review and approval of the State Board of
Finance following Authority approval,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SARSD:
Section 1. In connection with any financing between the Authority and the Governing
Body in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000.00 (eight million five hundred thousand) dollars for
the purpose of building a Spaceport Visitor Center, the SARSD hereby agrees to a pledge by the
Governing Body of gross receipts taxes made available to the Governmental Unit by the SARSD
pursuant to law, including any available Excess Pledged Revenues, for the purpose of paying
amounts due under such financing, and agrees that such pledge will not be rescinded or
terminated at any time such financing remains outstanding.
Section 2. All acts and resolutions in conflict with this resolution are hereby rescinded,
annulled and repealed.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSES APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________________ , 20___
SPACEPORT AMERICA REGIONAL SPACEPORT DISTRICT
By ________________________ _
(Seal)
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Authorized Officer