Part 3: Citizen contacts with multiple state agencies point to a possible multimillion-dollar agreement with the state — with nearly $1 million reportedly already spent on design — to correct the very concerns cited in the closure proposal

Editor’s note: This is Part 3 in an ongoing Alamogordo Town News series examining City Manager Robert Stockwell’s proposal to close Bonito Lake to recreation and fence the reservoir. Part 1 examined the up-to-$1 million fence proposal, the Open Gate Agreement, and the community response. Part 2 revealed that the 2026 Legislature approved $250,000 — requested by the City itself — for shoreline and day-use improvements at the lake, an appropriation never mentioned in the closure proposal. The Commission tabled the proposal until its September 22, 2026 meeting.

A pattern is emerging in the debate over Bonito Lake’s future: resources committed to keeping the lake open keep surfacing after the fact — never in the City’s own presentation for closing it.

First it was the $250,000. As this series reported in Part 2, the 2026 Legislature approved — in full — the City’s own Commission-approved request for shoreline and day-use improvements at the lake. Senate Bill 240 was signed into law on March 11, 2026, becoming Chapter 71 of the Laws of 2026. That appropriation appeared nowhere in the August 25 agenda report recommending termination of public access and construction of up to $1 million in security fencing.

Now, information reaching this news organization suggests the $250,000 may be the smaller omission.

A possible multimillion-dollar agreement

It has recently come to the attention of this news organization that concerned citizens have contacted multiple state agencies regarding the future of Bonito Lake. Through information shared during those communications, this news organization became aware of a possible multimillion-dollar agreement between the City of Alamogordo and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, now the New Mexico Department of Wildlife, to address infrastructure and safety concerns at the lake.

The proposed partnership reportedly included millions of dollars in improvements — figures described to this news organization as approaching $8 million — in addition to nearly $1 million the state had already invested in design work. The proposed work may have included clearing the coffer dam and detention basin, realigning the channel, and correcting infrastructure concerns so the area could safely move toward reopening campgrounds and preserving fishing access.

The stated purpose, as described to this news organization, was straightforward: fix the infrastructure so it would be safe to move on to the campground.

If accurate, that scope of work reads as a near line-item match for the deteriorating infrastructure and uncleaned debris basins the City Manager cited as grounds for closure.

A chronology the records should confirm — or refute

Information received by this news organization describes a specific sequence of events, which multiple pending records requests to confirm.

The agreement was reportedly the product of extended negotiations between city leadership and the Department, and was said to be nearing completion at the time former acting City Manager Dr. Hernandez departed. 

Work on the agreement reportedly continued under the acting city manager who followed, and the document was ready for execution — expected to be signed in late June or July.

Information received indicates a draft agreement was in fact signed by the then-acting city manager before that official’s own departure from the City.

Rather than transmitting or honoring that executed version, City Manager Stockwell reportedly had the document sent back to be amended and reissued bearing his name to the agreement for his signature.

Whether Stockwell ever signed the reissued version — or whether the agreement was allowed to lapse, was cancelled, or remains pending with the Department — is unknown to this news organization pending confirmation via our IPRA requests. 

If this account is accurate, the implications are significant: the agreement did not sit unnoticed in a file. It was negotiated across two city administrations, an draft executed once, and returned specifically so it could carry the current City Manager’s signature — months before he presented a closure proposal that made no mention of it. An agreement a city manager asks to have reissued in his own name is not an agreement he was unaware of.

This news organization emphasizes that this chronology is drawn from information received, staff accounts and, not yet from documents yet in hand completely. The signature history — who signed, when, and what the Department did upon receipt — exists in records held by both the City and the Department, and both have now been asked to produce them.

A contractor on site

The possible agreement is not the only resource that has surfaced outside the official presentation. A contractor was recently observed working at Bonito Lake. This news organization was informed that the contractor had an active $56,000 agreement with the City, and was expected to repair the stairwell steps described as among the most serious safety concerns at the property. The current status and full scope of that agreement have not yet been confirmed but a copy of the scope of work and who is executing the work has also been requested via IPRA. 

With an active contractor agreement existing to remedy the stairwell — a hazard specifically invoked in the case for closure — that too was absent from the presentation to the Commission and is concerning. 

The state’s role and tax dollars already expended is substantial

None of this would arise in a vacuum. As reported in Part 1, the City operates under a seven-year, prepaid Open Gate Access Program agreement with the Department — the arrangement that reopened Bonito Lake to anglers in 2024 after twelve years of closure following the Little Bear Fire, and one that would reportedly obligate the City to repay the state if public access is ended early.

Information now received by this news organization further indicates that, under the Open Gate arrangement was enhanced, the Department committed to monitor and patrol the Bonito Lake area — a commitment made because the City lacked the staff to do so itself. If so, the staffing burden presented to the Commission as a reason for closure may already have an answer sitting in an existing agreement.

Counted together, that is a $250,000 appropriation, a possible agreement approaching $8 million, a contractor reportedly under active agreement for the most cited safety hazard, and a state patrol commitment — none of it disclosed to the commission nor the public in the closure presentation.

The records request

This news organization has submitted a request under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act for agreements, contracts, proposed scopes of work, design documents, correspondence, cancellation records, and other documents related to Bonito Lake. A second request seeks communications and correspondence concerning these agreements among city staff, the City Manager, and city commissioners. A parallel request is being directed to the New Mexico Department of Wildlife, which holds its own copies of any draft or executed agreement, the design invoices, and the related correspondence.

What the public deserves to know

The public deserves to know what contracts or agreements existed, or remain active, to correct the safety and infrastructure concerns identified by City Manager Robert Stockwell. That accounting should include the status and intended use of the $250,000 capital outlay appropriation for shoreline access, day-use facilities, and related improvements at Bonito Lake.

If state funding, agency assistance, contractor agreements, or other resources were already available to address these concerns, the City Manager should explain why this was not part of the broader discussion before permanent closure was recommended.

If a multimillion-dollar partnership existed, or was close to being finalized, the public deserves to know what happened to it.

Before the September 22 vote, the Commission should ask, in addition to the questions raised in Part 2:

What is the current status of any infrastructure agreement with the New Mexico Department of Wildlife?

Was a version executed by the former acting city manager, and if so, why was it returned to be reissued rather than transmitted?

If the state has already invested nearly $1 million in design work, what happens to that investment — and to the City’s relationship with the Department — if the lake is fenced?

What is the status and scope of the contractor agreement for the stairwell and handrail work, and why was it not disclosed?

Did the Department’s patrol and monitoring commitments under the Open Gate Agreement factor into the claim that the City cannot oversee the area?

The City of Alamogordo, the city manager’s office, and the New Mexico Department of Wildlife did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will be updated as records are produced.

Join the discussion Tuesday

Residents will have a chance to discuss all of this live — and be heard before the Commission votes. The Voices of Alamogordo monthly community forum, “Keep Open Access to Bonito Lake,” will be held Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at Otero Arts, 1118 Indiana Avenue, Alamogordo. The forum is a community discussion on the lake’s history, purpose, and significance — and what residents can do to keep it open. Hosted by 2nd Life Media, Alamogordo Town News, and KALH Radio, the event is free and open to the public. All are welcome. Bring your questions.

More News from Alamogordo

• Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting, Back-to-Back Standoffs Close Out a Tense Week in Alamogordo Officer involved shooting and two neighborhood street closures leads a tense week for APD
• Tigers’ Comeback Falls Short on the Road as Clovis Holds On, 28-20 Tigers 1 and 1 with play continuing next Friday.