Councilor Weimer, would you lead us please?

Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under Godisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

If I could remind everybody, including myself to please silence your cell phones.

I'm gonna take that advice right now.

Um for the record, I'll announce the names of the governing body members.

When I say your name, please acknowledge your presence by saying present.

Let's see here.

Counselor Dabson present.

Councillor Lynentine.

Oh, let's see here.

Ums Hugh attending remotely today or okay.

Um Councillor Tyler, Councillor Weimer present.

Councillor Culbreth has been excused, Councillor List present.

Okay, virtual members, please activate your cameras for the duration of the meeting and use the raise hand feature if you wish to speak.

Uh public comment will not be taken at this work session.

Moving on to the first item facilities master plan update.

Uh Ryan Chavez.

How are you today?

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the governing body.

Um I'm going to give another update on our facilities master plan.

Um the purpose of the facilities master plan is to identify and plan for the needs based on growth and the strategic plan.

And the facilities master plan goes beyond the ICIP but has been incorporated into the ICIP.

Um to recap our process and how we got here.

Uh we originally met with and requested facility needs and priorities from the police department, fire and rescue, public works, and parks and rec.

We inventoried maintenance needs and developed a maintenance schedule, identified potential funding sources, and then we presented those priorities to you all at a work session in June of 2023 with an update in June of 2024.

In those updates, we uh you saw a similar version of this slide a couple of times now.

Um as these debts retire, the city can replace these payments with new and future debt to fund some of these projects.

Um additionally, when the higher ed GRT earmarks unsets in FY28, the governing body can reauthorize the increment to go towards a facilities master plan, future staffing needs, and other needs.

Um the current five-year forecast projects that it will be at nearly six million a year.

So with that, um we have the big five projects that we've considered in the facilities master plan, which include Fire Station 8, the Fire and Rescue Training Facility, Operational Annex, and Streets of Ridaway, Multi-Generational Recreation Center, Police Headquarters, and some others.

Um I'm going to pass it off to the project managers for each of these projects to provide a status update, starting with Chief Wenzel to talk about Fire Station 8 and the training facility.

The second being the training facility.

So station eight, station eight will station eight, excuse me, will be located at the corner of veranda in Cabezone Boulevard.

It'll be sitting on approximately 1.35 acres of land and have a building envelope size of just over 15,000 square feet.

So the current status of the project is we have received our 60% uh plans.

We are reviewing them and hope to have those turned back to the architect and engineers by this Thursday.

That will then allow us to uh work on the 90% completion plans.

Those are due to us within two weeks of this Thursday.

We'll then send it back to the department as well as other city staff for a comment and review, and then another two weeks that'll come back with 100% plans.

Once we receive our 100% plans, we will go to the bid.

We are looking at doing about a 45 uh day bid for the construction.

Once that bid is awarded, that's probably gonna put us late November to early December.

Realistically, that probably puts us at breaking ground and shovels uh putting place in the ground, uh the beginning of 2026.

So funding for the station, we're sitting at roughly about 12 to 14 million dollars.

We did receive five million from state appropriation.

So the city would be uh responsible for the additional seven to possibly ten.

That would be coming from a GRT bond that was just purchased by the city.

Um key points that we do want to talk about with station eight.

It'll have four bays.

We are looking at putting 12 bunk rooms in there.

That's not how we're gonna initially staff it.

We would be staffing it with five individuals, but it does allow us uh future growth.

So here's some more renderings for you.

This is kind of looking from the I guess uh Maggie Cordova Elementary, kind of the front parking lot off of Cabazone.

And then there's the west, I guess the east elevation, so it'll be kind of the exterior into the kitchen and the uh outside portion for the firefighters, and then this will be the back of the station.

So, again, where the firefighters will be parking.

Uh so some other components that we do want to talk about for station eight is we will be having a community room just over 900 square feet, almost the same size as what we have at the senior centers senior citizen center just up the road that'll allow us to uh do voting and some other community activities within that fire station as well.

Any questions on station eight?

Moving right along.

So we have now the training facility.

Excuse me.

So the training facility will be located on the same site as station five.

We have including station five, six acres of land.

Uh we did in 2023 do a uh feasibility study.

So what you see is the rendering for the training facility partnered with station five.

The training facility would have a burn prop and a training tower, which will allow us to uh keep our crews in the city for doing training and not have to send them to Socoro as much, which will be very nice and uh everything state of the art.

We are gonna be looking at adding a couple bays for logistical storage as well as apparatus storage.

The turnaround for this is probably starting the uh plan review process within the fiscal year 27.

So we got a little bit of time on this.

Once we start the plan process, again we're looking at about a 14,000 square foot training facility.

Um neighborhood of uh 15 million is what we initially started with that, and then we would be looking at funding or identifying the funding sources for that at a later time.

And that is all we have for the training facility.

And now stand for any questions.

Yes.

On the um facility, I got the skate park and all the all the public parks are still gonna stay intact, right?

Because that's on the other side of the drainage, so everything else is staying intact.

Because someone called me about that.

So I wanted to ask that question.

Yeah, Council Tyler, so that's all gonna be moved to the park side, and then where the water or the water tower is would be taken over for the station for those grounds, but we would be retaining the park and the skate park.

Is that what you're asking?

Yeah, you're gonna use that as part of the construction.

That is correct.

So then what were we gonna move the skate park, Connie?

Or are we gonna relocate the skate park?

Mayor Councillor Tyler, I don't believe we're gonna move the skate park.

We're gonna take the equipment that's at the current state park and replace some of the vacancies that we've taken out at some of our other skate parks.

Okay.

All right.

All right, I will be passing it now on to BJ.

Yeah, you can do it just.

Thank you.

Okay, good afternoon, Mr.

Mary and Counselors.

Today I'm gonna be presenting on the operational annex and the streets and ride away facility, uh project that we have currently ongoing.

As you may be aware, the streets and ride-away facility and the building maintenance custodial fleet locations are all leased facilities currently.

Um we lease them from different entities currently as well.

Uh, streets and right-away being the county, uh, Sandoval County.

Uh, we had a 25-year lease with them when we originally built that facility in the 90s and it expired last year.

So we had to reach out to the county for an existing uh extension to the lease.

We were hoping to negotiate another 25-year lease at the facility that the city purchased and built.

Um, unfortunately, the county has other uh needs for that facility, so all they were able to allow us to have was a five-year lease on that facility, and um preempted us to have to look at other locations for streets and right away in the future.

Um, this year we reached out to the church by fire station number one off of golf course and southern boulevard to re uh negotiate a lease for them uh for building maintenance custodial on traffic, which is right behind fire station one.

Unfortunately, we usually get a five-year lease from them.

This year we were only able to negotiate a three-year lease.

So they didn't give us an end date in site, but because we're going from five to three, I expect an end date coming soon.

So, really, it's the time now to look for our own facilities and handle our own future.

And luckily for the city, we had the foresight years ago to purchase 22 acres of land at the intersection of Kim and Idelia, and that's the perfect location for both of these facilities, plus other uh departments as well.

It helps us provide that centralized maintenance location.

Um, I should mention between Lomatis Loop and the West end of our property, we will be purchasing another five acres to help future proof the site for a total of 27 acres.

So our first tenant, as I mentioned earlier, we have uh two leases that we need to convert to a facility of our own.

But we have a deadline for streets and rideaway.

So our first op first tenant of this site would be streets and rideaway, and that's currently what our design is for today.

Um, right now we're looking at uh a new materials site location.

The current site that I mentioned before does contain our materials, but we need to relocate that along the site so it better flows, and I'll show you a picture of that here momentarily.

We're also needing to build a new heavy equipment, a modern heavy equipment fleet shop for streets and ride away.

Uh we want to provide uh police fire as well as ourselves, our own fueling station currently.

Right now, we have a contract with the county to use their fueling station right next to our streets and right away facility facility.

The problem is with that is we pay 10% above what the county pays, so having our own facility for fueling, we'll be able to do a better job of that and provide our own uh our own fuel fuel at our cost.

So, and then of course, offices and conference rooms are part of that as well.

Our second tenants are hopefully going to be additional uh public works facilities or operational needs.

One of them is building in custodial maintenance, fleet maintenance for the light duty vehicles, police and some fire trucks, and then uh everybody else, and then uh traffic operations.

We also are going to be looking at a warehousing facility facility there.

Uh so we have a centralized purchasing location for all needs within public works and maybe in the future citywide.

And then we've been working with parks and recreation and utilities as uh additional tenants at the site.

So the site will uh handle those if we move well as we move forward into that uh that design.

So um this actually right here, this slide shows the current and layout at 30 percent.

Um it is Idelia and Kim, so Kim is to your right, Idelius to your north.

This is rotated so it's flat, but really and truly Idelia is uh trying uh diagonal road, so just keep that in mind.

Um the area in red, and then further uh diving down into it, the area in yellow within the red is phase one, and that's related to streets and right-a-way.

So we have our streets and right-away offices directly in the middle, with to the west of it uh the fleet shop for heavy equipment, followed by all the way on the far west side, the um fueling station and the material storage, plus our salt center barn, which we currently have at our current location, that will move to this location when we actually do the construction of this facility.

Anything in white, whether it's inside the red bounded area or not, would be a future phase, phase two is what we're calling that today.

And on the last slide for the operational annex streets and right-away, is just basically where we've been and where we're going.

So, right now we started the project in January of 2025, and we're in August at this point.

So, from January to July of this year, we spent the time doing site assessment, tenant surveys to understand the needs so we could get a good design of the facility, and developing schematics that could be turned into an actual 30% design submittal.

We did receive a 30% design submittal in August.

We've reviewed that submittal and submitted that back to the architect with questions from us, back to them that they need to address so that we can move into 60% plans, which we expect in the next couple months.

Um but I want to point out the hope is we'll be done with this streets and ride-away design, not the operational annex.

That's going to have to be additional to what the time frame I present here, February 2026, we'll be done with the design.

So our hope is that we can phase construction and maybe in the next budget FY27 budget, we may be able to start with utilities in Idelia that matches the design for the Idelia Road reconstruction or engineering project that we got going on as well currently.

So, with that, I'll stand for any questions you may have on the operational annex or streets and right of way project.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and Counselors.

I'll pass it over to Director Peterson for the multi-generational facility.

Thanks, BJ.

Uh good evening, Mayor, members of the governing body.

Uh, we're going to switch gears and go from the operational annex to the multi-gen facility.

Um we had an internal meeting with facility managers to identify some of our current challenges, um, our limitations and some opportunities for improvement.

And it's no secret that some of our current challenges include the lack of sports courts for activities, including basketball, volleyball, and the ever growing pickleball.

Additionally, we're always trying to support performing arts.

So a designated area for a stage was a theme that kept resurfacing as one of our limitations.

Several of my community center management staff researched and visited other centers and similar facilities in the region, including the core and Hobbes.

Uh, the Genevieve Chavez and Santa Fe, the Mazano Mesa multi-gen facility in Albuquerque, the North Domingo Baca multi-gen facility, also in Albuquerque, and then the Durango Community Center.

And during our research, we identified what kinds of spaces, layouts, and amenities were successful elsewhere, and how to apply those lessons here in Rio Rancho.

Staff then met with the landscape design team, Plan Collaborative, and we studied the layout of the old Shining Star preschool site.

Public Works conducted a drainage study for us that we've shared with our design team, and we are taking a look at the existing utilities and other constraints surrounding the site, which seem to be minimal.

We've also taken a look at the usage patterns and traffic flow along Northern and Rockaway Boulevard, which tie into the accessibility of the site.

And at all of those meetings and site visits and conversations with internal staff and the design team that resulted in a conceptual plan, which includes the essential and priority features and amenities of the facility.

So the following five slides that I'll be sharing with you are extracts from the final conceptual plan report.

The first slide will be the uh first site plan that includes a legend of all the amenities and spaces.

It's essentially a 2D drawing of the facility.

The second slide is a 3D version of the site, more of a bird's eye view.

The third slide will be a first floor plan, the fourth slide will be the second floor plan, and then the final slide will be the cost estimate, which you'll want to take a deep breath for that one.

Okay, this first slide is the site plan that includes a legend of all the amenities and spaces, basically the two view 2D version of the facility.

We have the multi-gen facility or the building.

Uh we've got uh large amount of landscape areas, some lawn, a multipurpose tennis and pickleball courts, basketball courts, a playground, multiple shade structures, 422 parking spaces, we have an agility course and a planned path around the perimeter.

The next slide is the 3D bird's eye view looking northwest.

Uh the legend from the previous page can also be applied here.

The next slide we have the first floor of the multi-generational building that includes a multipurpose courts for basketball, pickleball, volleyball, with spicate with spectator bleachers, has locker areas, multi-purpose areas or multi-purpose classrooms, rather.

It has a performance stage area that's also multi-purpose that can be used as a classroom.

We have administrative offices should we decide to relocate all the parks and rec to this facility.

And then, of course, we have utility and storage areas, utility and storage areas.

This is the plan for the second floor.

There's an indoor track that looks down onto the courts.

We have a fitness center that faces the sandillas, uh, a rooftop deck that can serve as classroom space or as rental space.

Okay, this is where you have to take a deep breath.

This is our project estimate.

It came in at 104 million dollars for this facility.

So at this time we are working with Plan Collaborative to create a phased conceptual plan in chunks of about 25 million each, with the multi-generational building and some parking space being the first phase.

So with that, I stand for questions.

Mr.

Mayor?

Um, I just have one question.

Um besides classroom type things, what do you envision for the stage?

Would it be possible for people to put put on performances there?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and if so, do is there a storage space for them to store props and yeah, that's the intent, is we would have storage space on each side.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right.

Right.

Any other questions?

No, I think we're good.

Thank you.

All right, I'm going to turn it over to Deputy Chief Romero.

Mr.

Mayor, uh, members of the governing body, thank you for allowing me to be here today and good afternoon.

Um, I'm gonna update you on our facility's master plan that we currently are doing a physic feasibility study and a site selection for a new police headquarters.

Um, as you know, we uh have our we are currently housed at a uh old retrofitted manufacturing facility, and of course, as you know, it houses dispatch the police department as as and as well as municipal courts.

Um what we found over the last several years is that we're you know, as we grow, we've completely outgrown space, and we're trying to find adequate spacing within the department for our needs for our our uh employees to work, etc.

Um, what we found with the initial needs also that we are looking at as far as more spacing for growth is um as we grow, we're gonna need a uh upgraded communication tower and equipment.

Um obviously the workspaces I talked about for our units and divisions, um vehicle parking as well as garage parking that can protect our special equipment, our heavy equipment and our specialized vehicles.

Not only that, but our training facility upgrades as well.

So with that, um we partnered with Wilson and Company and FGM architects a little bit about FGM architects.

Uh they are an architectural firm that they specifically did design public safety facilities, and that is it.

Um so with that, we've asked them to look at three different locations for an upgraded headquarters for our police department.

Um the first one is just obviously looking at our existing location at 500 quantum and whether that's going to be feasible to uh build there as well as the adjacent park uh to make an adequate facility for us there.

Uh the second location is site selection.

Um we're looking at locations in the area of UNSER, one would be here next to city, or two of them would they would be here next to city center, um, PDV and UNSER, we're looking at that location.

We're also looking at UNSER and King as a location.

The third uh area that they're looking at is to see if municipal court can stand alone on their own at the old MVD building on Sabana Grande.

If that is not an adequate uh part of of uh that study, then we would be looking at keeping them attached to the police department in a new facility.

So what we're looking at the timeline is uh we're about a quarterway through the study right now.

We're looking to now in the fall to um finalize that study, and we're also looking at uh anticipated design of FY27.

So with that, I'll I'll stand for any questions.

Counselor Tyr.

Hey, Deputy, uh uh what about I know we looked at Safe Light, that facility over there.

Yep, Council Tyer, yes, we did look at that facility.

Um what we're looking at, what we found with that facility now is that it's a $15 million facility just to purchase that uh at this point.

It's gonna cost us twice that to build a new police station.

Correct, sir.

So my thought process is I mean, I I would say I mean, if you if you can maybe get the uh FGM architects to just take a look at that piece as well, because we'd still have to build a garage on that extra piece of property because it's not just that property, it's that all you know, that other property we looked at that has the parking lot next to Home Depot.

Yes, guys, all that.

So maybe to have them take a look at that as another piece of that because if we're gonna build out over here where you're where you're currently at and build onto the park, I mean that right there is gonna be I mean, I don't know the numbers, I can't sit here and say numbers, but it doesn't matter what we do, it's gonna be expensive either way.

But maybe take a look at that because that might be if we can build if you guys can build it out right, and if it's gonna be something that'll work, then maybe it's something we can get you into sooner than later.

You know what I'm saying?

Something that could be done quicker, as far as I mean, they'd still have to build out garages, it gives you enough room, I think, for the cell towers, it gives you ample space to for vehicles.

You're sitting up high on a hill, so the only thing you'd have to do is cut the trees down.

But other than that, you know, I mean, if they could look at that, I don't know if that's something you could potentially look at.

That is something we could look into, Counselor.

Yeah, because I I mean we're we're already building everybody else a new one.

Jeez, you know, might as well.

You know, I'm just I mean, I get where you're coming from.

Don't get me wrong, but I'm looking at trying to get you guys out of that place like yesterday, because that place is not workable at all.

And if we could purchase something kind of like what we did with the hub and refab it to be something that works really well, not just good for today, but like you said, expand it for tomorrow.

It would that facility work?

I don't know.

You guys would have to go you guys have already looked at it, we all looked at it together, but I'd like to see if those architects could look at that one as well because they're already looking at your current PD now anyway, so they might as well look at another facility that we could retrofit-ish and see if it would even work.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

We'll look at it.

Mr.

Mayor March of the Government Party, Councilor Tyler, we did do some uh research on you know, preliminary research on the cost of that property, and for a long time they had a buyer on it, and so there's a lot, there wasn't a lot of interest in talking to us, and I think that buyer has fallen through, but that we were then informed that the asking price or the agreed upon purchase price was 15 million dollars and 15 or 1515.

Okay.

And given that we were looking at the um I mean if I'm gonna I don't want to throw numbers out there, but I think uh uh Connie's uh slide on the multi-generational facility probably shows us the high range of what a a building can cost, and so um you know we've you know we'll circle back with the architect on it.

They did do some kind of tire kicking and expressing concern, you know, to say uh eyes wide open comments on what it would take to retrofit it.

So we'll circle back with them on that.

But given the $15 million price tag um and in consultation and conversation with the group, as we thought it was probably this deprioritize that one of the things that I personally like, and not we're not you know trying to get a lot of input here on quantum is uh you know, working uh collaboratively with the judge, we've been able to um for taking over the uh the vacant courtroom that's ever been used, and that's buying us a little bit of time.

Um we need to do something.

And then uh, you know, potentially if if the municipal court were to go, you know, we have some up, you know we're trying to buy some time in the current building.

Um, but if we were to look at building there on that, you know, highly unutilized park space, but we realize the business park needs some park space park space at well.

So we're not looking to entirely downsize the park by any stretch because it is a an amenity for some in the area, but can allow for continued operation and and in parallel as we build and it's right there, and then as we get the new building built, a lot of things can move into the new building, and then we can have our existing building and you know more aggressively remodel over time in the existing building as well.

So those are a couple things that are part of the thought process.

Then you said something, Deputy Chief, about the training facility.

But uh you guys are building a training facility too, right?

And there's gonna be some accommodations for PD over there as well in the interim until they get because that was my understanding that we were gonna kind of cohabitate on that deal a little bit because they're gonna need some space to run their pre-basic academies or whatever it is they run over there.

So I thought that we were gonna kind of accommodate that over there at that fire training temporarily until they get something off of the ground.

For sure, right?

Okay.

Yes, Councillor Tyre.

We we've we've uh talked with fire department about working with them to use their facility, but in the future we'll probably look at other facilities that we'd possibly need, such as a range, etc.

things of those nature.

But yeah, I get it, and indoor something.

But yes, I get you.

All right, range and driving track.

Yeah, that's what we need.

That's gonna be kids on Christmas.

You're not gonna have space big enough.

But anyways, okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilor Tech.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and members of the governing body.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you uh to all of our presenters.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body, if I may uh real fast, um, would like to first of all thank the governing body for allow us to kind of start this process of facilities master plan.

It seems like I think about two years ago now, Ryan.

Um, and it's kind of we're really pushing a lot of things forward.

Some are going a little faster and a little slower.

Um, but it is also at the same time, I think really giving us an opportunity to look, you know, smartly and strategically ahead of what the city's needs are for the next five to twenty years and really be able to grow into those as um the the needs of the community and the population continue to grow.

And we also know a lot of our historical facilities were you know um, you know, not well retrofitted buildings, I should say, or they were donated buildings, developer built buildings.

So um it's you know, we're moving the bunny hops are moving forward, and uh um excited to see Fire Station eight start to you know be the one that's gonna be you know the the closest to reality with with the groundbreaking um you know, not before too long, but continue to to look through this, and there's opportunities on the funding front for us um with retiring debt and um potentially you know um repurposing the higher ed gross receipts tax in the future to continue to accomplish these goals and and it while so in and focused on serving the needs of the community.

Cool.

Thanks, Matt.

Yeah, and just to add to that, in addition to these big five projects, um there are obviously additional needs within the city as we continue to grow both internally as an organization and as the city continues to grow, including um a city hall annex for additional office space, an outdoor pool in Northern Rio Rancho, open space, dog park, hike and bike trail park complex, uh new space for wastewater contractor, personnel and storage, and again just continuing to upkeep and kind of uh repurpose and reinvent our outdoor parks.

And with that, if there's any more questions, be happy to answer them.

Good.

Okay, nothing further.

We'll move on to the next item.

Amending the horse regulations discussion, counselor Dabson.

Wherever she feels comfortable.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and Governing Body for taking time to listen to me.

So which way that makes it go?

There we go.

I received a citizen request to change an existing municipal code in order to allow more horses on residential property.

Person had received a code enforcement notice based on the complaint received that more horses were being kept on air on their E1 property than it was allowed.

For an acre.

They had three.

Per the governing body rules of procedure, I requested the city staff to draft materials for my use, and they have done so.

So some background.

No, not that one.

Help.

Okay.

Just click on that.

Okay.

All right.

So in Rio Rancho, horses are allowed in the state residential districts E1 zoning, which is equine.

The minimum lot area for E1 is per the code is 21,780 square feet or half an acre.

They also, the municipal code allows for horses in the following criteria.

The minimum lot size required for the first horse is one acre.

Thereafter, each horse needs to have an extra half acre.

They must be corrals in such a way as to keep horses a minimum of 10 feet away from a property line.

No, that didn't do it.

I'm so sorry.

I cannot figure this out.

Okay.

Um I guess this goes farther than that.

I don't have these words in front of me.

That's not in the right order.

And I need to go back one.

Go back one to this page.

Rio Rancho horses are allowed.

Yep.

And Rio Rancho horses are allowed in agricultural residential zoning.

The minimum lot area for that is 43,560 square feet, and that includes animals such as horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats for commercial purposes, and provided that one head of cattle or horse does not exceed one for each 10,000 square feet.

Per municipal code zoning, conditional use, commercial use for profit boarding of houses as per relevant requirements are listed under chapter 116.

So we're not talking about a business.

We're just talking about homeowners.

Per municipal code 150.0 for E1 zoning, conditional use, which requires a permit, the transfer of stabling horse stable rights, a TSR permit, in accordance with section 154.78A to allow neighboring properties the ability to transfer horse stabling rights between properties provided.

The properties transferring the horse stabling rights must be abutting one another or within a thousand feet of each other, as measured in a straight line between property lines, provided the properties are not abutting each other under the applicant, each other.

The applicant also must also submit a letter of no objection for the transfer from the receiving properties.

The receiving property must have a minimum of 15,000 square feet of property for each horse above the initial one acre.

The property sending the horse must have platted or described acreage in excess of one and one-half acres.

The property sending or granting the horse stabling rights severs all rights to horse stabling on their property for the lengthy agreement with the receiving property.

The property owner sending the granting of the horse rights may end or cancel the transfer of horse stabling rights agreement with a minimum of one year notice to the receiving horse rights property owner and a copy of such delivered to the city.

Receiving owner can only receive horse ownership rights from one donating property.

A receiving property cannot also be sending property, be a sending property.

And for the purposes of implementing this subsection, I think I missed a thing.

Sorry, including mules and burrows.

Okay.

Okay, let's see.

It's not working again.

Okay.

So this is a list.

This is the map of all the E1 lots in Rio Rancho in districts one, two, and three and six, which are yellow.

And the yellow ones are occupied, the blue ones are vacant.

The occupied residential lots are there's with a half acre are 60 residential lots that are half acre that are vacant are 78.

The number of residential uh lots one half to one acre that are occupied is 249 lots, and the residential half acre to one acre that are vacant is 314 lots.

Residential one point five occupied is 321 lots, and residential one acre to 1.5 acres.

Bacon is 429 lots.

And then larger than 1.5, we have 241 occupied lots and 281 unoccupied lots.

So the AR, um that's the agricultural lots.

We have six lots that are occupied or lot one acre and larger, and seven lots that are not occupied.

So this is the where this is where once we started getting some uh research done, we did some comparisons.

The city staff did some comparison.

Um the other cities.

Rio Rancho, Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Corrales, and Bernalillo.

Rio Rancho is um the only one that's requiring one acre for one per horse per one acre.

Albuquerque allows one horse for each 10,000 square feet, which is kind of a little bit under a half acre.

Um Las Cruces has uh allows 9,000 square feet for the first animal and 6,000 for every animal after that.

Um Santa Fe has nothing, they don't have any regulations.

Corrales allows you to have as many horses as you want on as much land as you want.

They don't have any real limitations.

And Bernalio allows a house one horse each for 10,000 square feet.

So everybody else besides us is allowing more horses than one on an acre lot.

So, but here are some considerations.

Horses may create noise, odor, odor, and waste and dust and rodents, insects, pests, and issues for the surrounding properties.

Remember, these are all the surrounding properties are E1, so they're all producing that, but that's beside the point.

And what is the appropriate amount of space for a horse ready to related to health, exercise, and other needs?

Online sources, which I also found, just um indicate that traditionally an acre of horse is used as a starting point, but this is for animals that are grazing.

If they're if they're not being, they're not grazing, if they're being hand fed, then they're recommending recommended space is a minimum of 400 square feet, which is a lot smaller than what I'm asking for.

Also, quality of horse quality of life may be improved when surrounded by other horses.

Horses are social animals.

And um there's also indications that if a horse, two horses or three horses have been together, they can get developed separation anxiety when they are separated.

So if I know this labor woman has three horses, but there's a lot of other people that have two horses.

If they have to get rid of their horse, if they have to send it to a stable offsite, the other horse that's left, both horses actually could suffer from anxiety, which can cause things like um vocalization, pacing, kicking down walls, being of afraid of being alone, that kind of thing.

So I am seeking the governing body input relating to changing the municipal code and the number of horses allowed to have an ordinance go before the planning and zoning board for recommendation and then the governing body for vote and consideration.

I'm proposing to change one fifty-four point oh five of the municipal code for E1 zoning in the following manner.

The minimum lot size for up to two horses is one acre.

Currently, one acre is needed for the first horse, and I stand for questions.

I have questions for you.

Of course you do.

Counselor Tyler.

Counselor Tyler.

So the person that has the horses now, they have three.

Is that just three?

And they do know that they're on an acre.

They're on an acre.

But didn't they know before they moved there what the rules were before they moved there?

I I can't speculate to what they knew.

I don't know.

All right.

That's I guess that's my question because, or did they get the horses afterwards?

Because it's like my big thing is is the E1 and the R we start down this slippery slope when we start changing this stuff just based on what Paul and I we've dealt with before in planning and zoning.

And I guess my question was is when they bought the house, because we've seen this before, where realtors have said, oh yeah, you can have as much as you want there, and then they were falsely sent to that property, knowing that they thought they could have three horses, but they can only really have one.

So I guess that's part of my question is in our uh and if they already knew and they lived there based on already knowing, then here we are changing or looking to change something that they moved in there knowing that they could only have one horse.

Yeah, I and I don't know the answer to that.

I do know that um they are not alone.

Yeah.

There are seven other horses right in that neighbor, seven other properties right in that area who also have two or at least two horses, maybe three, but at least two horses.

I don't know how that how things got started this way.

I don't know why what they knew, what they didn't know.

Um but I also know that um up until somebody decided to file a complaint, no but they've there's history there.

They've had these horses, all of them have had these horses for quite some time.

And so I think by limiting it to just you know one up to two, no more than that, we could just never change that.

It's like somebody came, can we have three?

You can't have three horses on a on a one-acre lot.

There's not enough room for horses.

They need at least 10,000 square feet to be able that's unoccupied by anything else in order to be able to be healthy and have you know have enough room to move around.

I guess my fear is too is we're gonna start moving this around, and then what we're gonna end up seeing is people are gonna want to start having the horses in the R1s because they're on half acre lots, and then they're gonna just start.

If it's not an E1, then they're gonna say, Well, I got a half acre lot.

Like I got a guy behind me that had a horse, just not I mean, literally, and I think Amy's staff went out there and told them they couldn't have a horse because they're in an R1 half acre.

Right.

But I think that's the slope that it might go down.

That's what my fear is, but that I mean that's just my opinion, but whatever.

Yeah, I I I have my I understand your we're coming from, and I do realize I mean we've had people with roosters, which I know are not allowed in my neighborhood, and I had to say something about it.

So and that's always gonna be a problem having people breaking the rules.

So any other questions?

I'm sorry, I didn't answer that correctly.

No reviews.

All right, I have a question, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Weimer.

So I guess I I have a similar concern.

There's been a complaint, and so if we fix the problem, does the plaint complaint go away, or do we just make it exacerbated because now that person is now really upset because we circumvented their complaint process.

I know it's actually fixing the process, but nevertheless, um because there's been a complaint, and I guess another question maybe you don't know the answer to this.

Is this complaint focused at this one individual?

Because you said there's lots of neighbors in the area with multiple horses on what seem to be smaller lots.

Yes.

Yeah, yes, this is uh this is focused on the one.

None of the other people have had code enforcement violations, and they're all um some of them are right next door or right in the same air street, but this is all around um all of the A streets that are off of a brazo.

So they are all within perimeter, you know, close to each other.

And um, so we I my theory, they did not say that this, but my theory is that somebody had a grudge.

That's what I'm saying.

So, yeah, so I I so I understand your feeling about this, but that you know, we don't know for sure if that's gonna happen.

And they're gonna still the person who reached out to me is still gonna have to, and I've warned her about this.

Find a home for one of those three horses.

So the the other question I have is do you know if they pursued the transfer of stable rights option, or is there no property that isn't have that doesn't have horses within the the proximity of it one thousand feet or a butting?

Um I presented the idea to them.

I think what they they didn't say this out loud, but I think what they're doing is waiting to see how things you know play out here.

But yeah, they because they need to have something kind of planned in place regardless of how we vote on this in whatever meeting it comes up in.

And I guess it may be a general question for I don't know if it's you, Matt, or or someone else.

Okay, do we know how many folks have taken advantage of that transfer of stable rights to date?

Is anyone?

Mr.

Mayor, members of the government party, I'm gonna yield to Amy on that.

Um but I I believe on the transfer of stable rights, and I'm looking at uh slide five, and Amy can elaborate on this, hopefully, is there's a minimum lot size in at one acre.

I don't think it complies with the minimum lot size to do the transfer in.

Mr.

Mayor, Councillor Weimer.

So uh yes, uh that transfer of stable lane rights went in uh I believe in 2019.

Uh I was the staff planner on that one actually.

Um, and we have only had one person be successful in in having that move forward.

Um so we've had other people try, but in general, their neighbors have not been willing to um to sign over the the rights um because they either don't want horses next to them, um, and so it's their way of kind of limiting it, or um, or they want horses in the future, or they just uh don't like their neighbors enough.

Um so we've we've had multiple people try, but only one has actually gone through.

Thank you, Amy.

I guess um that that's all the questions I have.

I I'd be curious to hear what kind of input we receive from the public if this moves forward because that may be very telling as to whether or not we consider this or not.

So those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor had one follow-up.

Uh counselor, Amy, can you I'd like to get your take on this as well.

I'd like to kind of get your position.

I don't know if you had a question for counselor.

Okay.

I just want to get your what your thoughts are around the whole idea.

Uh so um Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler, so um I think it is worth if we move forward with this one uh to go to a couple of community meetings, uh, get some feedback from uh the surrounding areas.

I I think we do have a lot of E1 lots, um, but I think if we looked at the number of people who actually own horses, I don't actually think it's as many or as as big of an area as as we might think it is.

Um so I'd be curious to actually know the number of lots.

Um I have concerns about changing acreage um because when when we look at the slide that gives the acreage for number of lots and e1 that are half acre, those lots currently there's a lot of E1s that are half acre that cannot have horses.

Um and uh I think uh worst case scenario, right?

It becomes this idea that that it could be if if we're doing two horses per one acre, then isn't that really one horse per half acre?

So why can't the E1 lots that have half acre have a horse?

If I'm your next door neighbor in unit 17 and I'm across the street and you be one with half acre have one horse, why can't I R1 with half acre have a have a horse, right?

And so uh to me I I worry about that, I worry about that domino effect, I worry about how uh slippery slope just just every time that we make changes, even though they're small tweaks, um just it's worth us going through the process of of having those community meetings to see what everybody else thinks, where how they feel that that's going to move forward, and then also um just uh stress testing it, right?

So um uh having the planners kind of throw every scenario that they can at it and see what comes back, what what works, what doesn't, um, and what other things do we break?

Um because what uh sorry, well I'll wrap it up.

No, I'm not gonna get opened and I apologize.

What I what I worry about too is we change this one and it changes just this section of code, but it also does again change that stabling rights.

So then it increases the number of horses that somebody is going to be able to if if they do actually be able to, if they can actually get one of those transfers working, uh it increases that number as well.

So um so it increases numbers in a lot of different places, and so um just just worth us if we go down this road um a couple of of public hearings to or public meetings to talk about it, and then uh throwing out some scenarios to stress test what that would look like.

I think that's that's where I'm trying to figure out because just like you said, I think it is a slippery slope, and I think that your your numbers are absolutely right.

When you give someone an acre, then they're gonna say, Oh, that means every half acre, that means I can move them into R1s, and then they're gonna get people saying, Well, I want to just like the guy right behind me, like two months ago, had a dang horse over there on an R1.

You can't do it.

Um so I do have those same concerns.

I and I think that that's something that it's worth this having a discussion, it's worth looking at it, it's worth maybe researching it, but I'm worried about the out the bigger impacts down the road is what I'm looking at.

So sorry, Mr.

Mayor.

You're good.

Thank you, Amy.

Mr.

Mayor Governor Body, do you think we should set up some um community meetings?

Or should we see how things happen if we get it put it on the calendar or Mr.

Mayor?

Yeah, counselor lift.

Well clearly I'm just processing all of this, but if you look at your lovely picture that you sent us, district six seems to be about a third of their properties fall in this little category.

So um this would take an awful lot of thought for me to weigh in one way or the other.

Um but the unit 17 that was previously mentioned happens to also fall in that area, and so I I think that there's an awful lot to consider.

I think you're very right.

How do we say your acre, which is really half acres, is different than my half acres.

And so I think that we would have to be extremely thoughtful and how we proceeded.

I think that there's an awful lot of open space in district six.

This could be up for interpretation and maybe turn out so well and maybe not turn out so well.

Um and then I also um am concerned that not that we can't.

I mean, it's our job to always be looking at ordinances and change where they need to be changed, but we've I've already had inquiries about adding pigs and adding this and adding that.

So as soon as we start looking at changing our regulations for horses, then we need to be prepared to go down the entire manimal lists, mammal lists, and all the other critters um because I think that in fairness, everybody's going to ask the questions, and then it's our obligation to consider them, whatever the outcome may be.

Um but I know we've already had disheartened folks regarding pigs and so we would have to be prepared to open all animal residence findings and and reconsider what that looks like because we can't just say, well, we like horses, so therefore we can check on the horses and nothing else.

So I just am not even sure what to do with this.

But thank you so much for for being bold and advocating for your constituents.

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Liszt, thank you for your response.

And um actually I um I completely understand everybody's concerns, and that's part of the reason I brought it up here because uh, you know, my constituent is very, very um interested in seeing how this goes, and I did not want to cause problems by you know making it have something that's gonna domino downwards or upwards, or however you want to look at it.

So I was really bringing this to you for your for your insight and your input, and I really appreciate that from all of you.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body in the desert.

Yes, if I may, uh city staff will uh follow up with uh counselor Dabson to explore potential uh outreach options.

We've done some just basic surveys even on the city website before to start to collect some some input.

Um and I think uh um Councillor Dabson alluded to some other uh houses at least in that area that may have more than one horse, it would be in the same circumstances.

So, you know, seeing what that if that universe and hopefully those folks will chime in on the process if we collect feedback as well.

So good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor and Counselors.

Um I'm presenting uh right now on the uh overview of the weed and debris maintenance citywide, and so I'll just jump right in.

This is gonna be a presentation that we split among uh development services, administration, and public works.

And BJ, real quick before you do that, um let me introduce the item for the uh minutes.

No problem.

Sorry, Mr.

No, no, we kind of went from here to here and then back to here.

Uh okay, we're moving on to item number three, weeds and debris maintenance overview.

Director Gottlip.

Sorry, Mr.

Mayor, I guess I was just a little bit more than a lot of people.

I would have trouble with her if I just let you go.

That's true.

You know, she might have thrown some of me in.

I'm just really excited about it, so just wanted to jump right in.

You're ready to get into the weeds on this one?

I love it.

Yes, sir.

So as you all know, uh we've had a very wet summer to date, and we're not done with the monsoon season, even though it's kind of tempered a little bit.

We have till probably the end of October, early November before that happens.

Um and the last time we had a really wet summer, this was like 2022, we had a lot of complaints, and as we all know, regardless of rain, we get a lot of complaints during the summer months anyway on weeds.

But when we have rain, we get even more complaints because it doesn't take much for uh our vegetation in New Mexico to actually trans uh transition into an actual full-grown plant.

So um as we get these complaints, we have to uh understand who does what and what our maintenance obligation is, and and and so by looking at the municipal code, we understand as the city that we're responsible for our tirial and collector roads specifically and anywhere that the city owns property.

So if we have a park or if we have a drainage pond or we have uh a vacant piece of land somewhere, um we're responsible for weed mitigation on that property and on those two types of road classifications.

What the city is not responsible for is residential local roads where we do not own property.

Um any quarters owned by a sister agency such as NMDOT, where we do not have a maintenance agreement.

But beyond that, we are not.

Any SCAFCA properties, so that's Southern Sandoval County and Royal Flood Control Authority and their properties that they own, or any other properties such as AMREP, who owns several big drainage facilities around the city, and the archaeological conservancy, which owns some properties in the river's edge area.

On the left hand side, I did do a screenshot of our weed mitigation map, which I'll talk about momentarily, but in the interim, I'm gonna pass it over to Amy to talk about the municipal code.

So uh since 1997, uh we have had on the books in our municipal code uh this language on vegetation.

So all exterior property areas which have been altered from their natural state or developed in any way shall be kept free from dead uh dry vegetation, tumbleweeds, bushes, and tall grass and trees, which present a visual blight upon upon the area, um, or which may harbor any insect or rodent infestations and dry visit vegetation, which likely become a fire hazard or result in a condition which may threaten the health and safety or the economic welfare of adjacent property owners or occupants.

Um but the the big part, right, um, and what comes up every year that we have a wet year is this last sentence that says that this requirement shall apply to the road right-of-way that it butts the property line on any side of a lot of any lot.

So what we have on the right hand side of this screen is a snapshot from uh the um newsletter that went out in January 23.

Um, and that was a response.

Uh so the last really wet year that we had that brought up a lot of these code um compliance issues with weeds actually came out uh was that summer of 2022.

So the response from the city in 2023 was um was this snippet um about weeds and and whose obligations.

So the first picture up in that uh first top right hand side is going to be the side yard, um, and then you have a picture of of like the green belt, so that's that area between the back of the curb and the road, and then you have uh what would be those medians uh which would be uh those and green belts, which would be actually an image of King.

Um and so King Boulevard is something that the city takes care of, uh, but the other two are examples of what would be uh the responsibility of the property owner.

So uh something to you to think about is um anything that a property owner when their house is on a street and they front two streets, so they're the corner lot, um, they're responsible not only for the stuff in front of them, but they're responsible for um anything that is between them and the right of way on the side.

Um we have this a lot as well uh for the property owners when they have a back wall and they have a road, that's their back wall.

Um so that little bit of a strip between them and the road is also something that they are uh responsible for taking care of it.

So as we receive those complaints, and and thanks, Amy, for that discussion on the municipal code.

As we receive those complaints, the first thing we have to do is triage them and decide who's actually responsible.

Sometimes they come to streets and right-away, sometimes they come to the governing body, sometimes they come through administration, sometimes they come directly to me or DSD as well.

So we use our online weed mitigation map.

That's what I showed at the very first second slide, um, a snippet of that.

And basically it shows that we are responsible for those collector and arterial roads or where we own property.

And if it is the city's responsibility, streets and right-of-way, we make sure we put it on our schedule if it's not already, and we get back to the citizen with when we anticipate that work to be completed.

If it's not ours, the second thing we look at is it belonging to a sister agency that we need to transfer this to, and if it does, we get it to that agency and then let the citizen know who's the responsible party.

Unfortunately, like Paseo de Volcan here, we don't have any control over DOT's timeline on weed mitigation, but we do let them know it's been transferred to DOT and provide them the contact information for the Department of Transportation where they could check up on it.

Um in the cases where it's not either ours or a sister agency, then that is then transferred to code enforcement development services, and Amy will speak a little bit about their process.

So when code enforcement goes out, they do their site visit, they determine that it is the responsibility of the property owner.

Um they do start with uh looking at the weed mitigation map to make sure it's a local road and that it's not a collector or an interior.

Um, and then uh once they file the complaint, uh they'll issue out first a uh a courtesy notice of violation, a CNOV.

Um and what we hope happens at that point is that people clean up the weeds, move on, um, or at a bare minimum is that they reach out to code enforcement and ask for additional time or ask for some clarification.

Um and so what code enforcement has been doing uh, especially during uh this season is is making sure that they actually include a copy of that page from the newsletter when they send out their notices so that it helps educate uh the residents and and helps kind of move along that conversation uh so that people understand their responsibility for taking care of their property.

Uh worst case scenario um code enforcement really tries not to get here, but if if they have to, um they they will issue a citation to municipal court.

Um if it is a uh such a substantial issue on the property um that they have to have to go that route.

Um but we work towards voluntary compliance.

Uh we hope that um having copies of the newsletter and other information helps um educate the public on on what their responsibilities are and and will help uh limit any of those types of citations.

So after the notice of violation, whether it's courtesy or not comes out, usually a lot of citizens will respond back that they didn't know that they were responsible for the area that they're being uh noticed on.

And they ask, why not just change the ordinance?

Why doesn't the city just maintain it for us?

Because it doesn't really make sense for us to do it, especially on the backside of the property.

So I've provided some handouts for you uh to look at uh for each of your districts, and Mr.

Mayor provided you a handout of each district.

Um and what that shows is it shows these tracts of land that are along the back side or along the side yard, um, and there's a lot of them, right?

So our citywide impact currently is 122.77 acres of this private maintenance maintenance land that sometimes citizens are asking us to take over maintenance.

Um again, per code we can't take that over right now because the code is law and it says that we maintain collectors and above or areas where we have property.

And as Amy had previously said, this code's been in place for quite some time.

And I think the reason why the code hasn't been changed is because current city resources and even past city resources have not been sufficient to make those changes.

Um, we may we haven't had the funds in the past, we may have the funds now or we may not have the funds, but what we don't have is the labor to add this burden to the city.

Um so as I said before, the side yard and backyard burden could be 122 acres of private maintenance areas.

And then there's the AMREP owned drainage facilities in areas such as uh Vista Hills and River's Edge that equate to about another 128 acres for a total of 251 acres of property that's overlooked or or maintained by somebody other than the city.

So now that we've talked about what the burden is, let's talk about our staff considerations and our cost considerations.

Currently, the streets and right-of-way um manages 442 acres of roadways right now, and approximately 121 drainage facilities citywide.

The roadways themselves are broken down into 146 roads, uh collector and above.

121 currently are being managed by the city, 25 are being managed by the contractor.

Um that's with the current contract.

The one I brought, the contract I brought in July, that changes things, prices went up, so the in-house maintenance is going to go up and our contracted maintenance will go down, unfortunately.

And the fact of the matter is over the last three years, our vacancies for laborers who do the weed mitigation is at 63 percent.

Um so it's a very high vacancy rate for that work.

Um the other thing that I should say is that we're usually doing weed mitigation between March and November, and that's the exact same time that we're looking at doing neighborhood streets improvement patching in-house.

So we have a very high vacancy rate that we're we're stretching out over two different um exclusive uh projects that the city is operating within streets and right-away.

So it may ask uh why not just hire a contractor to take the burden and pay in more money or pay the pay the money, we have the money, pay the contractor to do that work.

Well, one, uh again, the ordinance would have to be modified because the ordinance basically says the city doesn't maintain that.

Uh but the fact of the matter is in July, when we came uh with the new contract, we only had one contractor bid on that current weed mitigation contract.

And I only know of approximately two contractors in the Rio Rancho area that do mitigation services, that would be Yellowstone and Green Summit.

There may be other smaller ones, but for the municipal level, those are the only two I am aware of at this point.

Um and and obviously only Yellowstone bid on our contract.

Um if we were to add this to the contractor, we're looking at over 500,000.

I believe just for the 123 acres, 122.77 acres of side yard and backyard, we'd be looking anywhere between 500,000 and a million dollars uh on a yearly basis to um to add that uh burden to the city.

But I would caution us to consider the the um the staffing issues for even our contractors.

If there's only one or two contractors locally to do this, it's probably because they're having difficult time recruiting staff just as we are.

So you know, they can't re we they can't re uh recruit uh laborers.

So even if we were to offer them the more uh additional money, um I think it would be difficult for them to absorb as well.

And what I should also say is uh what the dollar amount that I've been talking about here does not include AMREP's ownership of those large drainage tracks.

If we were to take that over, we'd be looking at probably on top of the 500 to a million, another million, a million and a half maintenance fees per year, as well as uh millions of dollars to bring those drainage parcels up to modern day standards to function properly.

So I know I've I've given a lot of uh not great news, but we're gonna talk about targeted options that could uh help prevent this or fix this issue going forward, and I'll turn it over to City Manager for that discussion.

Can I ask my questions now or should I wait?

We have a couple more slides.

So should I wait?

Because you know what I'm gonna ask, so I should probably wait.

Um couple things here, just in uh we'll talk through some as we go through QA.

So what we have here is just when I we labeled as targeted options.

Um these aren't things that are necessarily moving the needle, but maybe little by little uh whittling away.

Um median landscaping, this is focused on uh city property, uh finished install landscaping and empty medians.

Uh, you know, there'd be ground cover plus plantings.

Uh when we have ground cover, think about you know, as listed here as an example, King Boulevard and City Center, Unser Boulevard from City Limits to Southern.

When we have that, it's a lot easier to come through with pre-emergent early in the season, hit it, and hopefully then the pre-emergent activates, and it's pretty much taken care of for the year.

If not, it's a couple weeds that pop a lot easier to tackle.

Um good kind of visual comparison is if we talked about Fire Station 8, veranda, and and UNSER, the traffic median right there.

Um that gravel, we call it you know, we lost the battle as BJ and I call it.

There was landscape gravel, small material installed there probably when the school was built, and it's just been taken over by weeds.

Um then you look at the UNSER median, and so that's you know, one area on pre-emergence.

So actually, we've added it to the fire station project.

We're gonna get uh landscaping in that median as part of the fire station project.

So that's an example of just you know, on a micro level, um take you know, taking a couple of those off the board little by little.

We have lots of unfinished uh medians uh throughout the city, lots of example of west side um from city limits uh to park above boulevard or park above road is uh an example there.

So we may see in future uh funding requests in the the budget process from uh public works, uh you know, X dollars per year to little by little uh tackle unfinished medians um to take some of those off the board.

Uh the second thing would be um you know, review landscaping stabilization at city facilities as part of preventive maintenance and capital programs to reduce sediment runoff into the right-of-way and weed growth.

Uh the school district, I think one or two geobonds ago did this with a lot of their older facilities, um, just they address the you know the the you know just that the drainage around the facilities.

Um that kind of sediment runoff has a kind of a it's a you know a corollary or is as a parallel to the weed problem, and that when we end up with sediment runoff into the to the roadway, it's something else that streets and right-of-way has to tackle.

Um, and it's something something else that they have to tackle, and then the sediment blowing and stuff like that helps actually propagate uh weed seeds and grow elsewhere.

Probably a good example of that.

Um talking a little bit apart the town I live in, wastewater treatment plant six, um the banks around that weren't uh originally stabilized, and we see a lot of runoff come off of that facility into uh the cul de sac near park above.

So that's just another problem.

So as time goes on, we'd like to see if we can dip those in a butt of the and you know and address those.

Um review uh city code policies and practice for dust control, which is in uh chapter 91 uh.08, as well as MS4 permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan.

Um, you know, this is another example of uh uh you know section of uh code that's been there for quite some time.

Um, in the policies and practices, I mean there's uh the the option of uh of you know looking at whether maybe we were more prescriptive on what we would like to see in the uh in the SWIPS and those uh best practices.

Um good example of we something that we saw that we really like that the developer did was the village.

And they used uh uh a seeding mix and a hydro mulch that had winter weed in it and actually caused the series of and so you know it caused growth.

And so if you look in the undeveloped lots, you have a good natural vegetation, not weeds, natural vegetation growing, and it's not perfect, but it helps stabilize it, and there's very little runoff uh and dust coming off of that site compared to other development sites.

So another thing that we want to think through.

Um, and then uh you know, BJ has a couple other um good examples targeted capital programs to reduce runoff um Ocono Circle, Second Street, these are counselor Dabson's district that cause a lot of runoff and sediment into the you know, the green belt, the sidewalk, and the right-away.

So nothing if we can address the source problem, then we reduce the amount of maintenance work and cleanup work that we have to take on after a storm, also prevent the uh the you know the infiltration of uh dust, sand, sediment into the green belt, which it'll ultimately just cause more weeds for us over time.

So these are some micro slash targeted options that we'll look to kind of nip some things in the bud over time.

Um BJ, would you want to hit on any of those?

Some are more public works or no?

Nothing to add?

Is there anything to add to those?

We'll see for QA.

Okay.

Um and then some potential policy considerations.

Um, you know, why are we putting this out there?

Because uh as you heard at the beginning um from Amy and BJ, it's been a wet summer, so we've had a lot of weed complaints.

You drive around the town, we see a lot of weeds.

Our streets and right-away guys and the contractor are getting after it.

Um, you know, for they're getting after as much as they can, but also with the heavy rains, they spend a lot of time in cleanup mode, which they don't get to get after the weeds, and then the weeds get uh worse.

Um you know, so really kind of uh we're we are today uh you know, option one, keep the status quo, the ordinance that's been in place since 1997, continue down the path of uh education and in some cases enforcement, um, as Amy referenced.

That January newsletter, January 2023 was our first newsletter ever, but we had had just the wet summer.

So that's we try decided to feature that.

We're featuring it again in an upcoming newsletter based on some feedback from uh counselor Tyler.

Um we've actually started to print that you know this summer um after uh an incident that uh we had in uh the counselor's district.

We started to print off that news that page of the newsletter from um the website, and we include that with every um notice of violation or courtesy notice of violation, excuse me, to provide you know, serve as an educational piece and explain the ordinance in a little more detail so folks can understand it.

So option one, continue the status quo, um, you know, education followed by enforcement for existing ordinance.

Option two is explore alternatives, um sharing this because we're going to in September next month, September 19th.

Uh we have our uh annual goal setting meeting where one of the things we do is we walk through the planning calendar and with you know, so planning a seed, not for a weed.

Um that joke, I know.

Um the see if this is something that you guys would like to look at in the upcoming year.

If so, it is probably one of those areas that uh you know we would uh seek some involvement from the governing body through a working group to talk through what are the potential criteria if we're gonna expand our maintenance universe.

Some examples for conversation's sake.

Um and we've tried to wrap our heads around this truthfully, and you know, we have it it's a tough thing to wrap, you know, figure out where, which I get into the next section there, what would be the boundaries if we do expand the the uh the maintenance scope, but some ideas we presence of street trees.

We have some residential streets, um, Colorado Mountain is one that the mayor likes to reference a lot where the developer put in street trees.

We don't have much of a street canopy in the city of Rio Rancho, so I think a lot of folks value that you know that street can, you know, the excuse me, tree canopy.

Um, but maybe not something that we want, you know, residents going out there with their chainsaw and and and saw and hacking down limbs and they're dropping into the street.

So maybe it's you know, we we look at you know uh you know, look at the the maintenance of the street trees or the presence of street trees.

Um no practical owner access or unsafe conditions.

Um obviously our crews are contractor screws and get to go out there with trucks, lights, traffic control if needed, safety vest and and things like that.

Um good example, I think Mayor, it is Second Street is the Second Street, correct?

The no the uh um out in District One behind communal crossing.

Uh, it's behind summer winds, I think it is, not summer winds.

It's um or summer tree.

Uh but no practical owner access.

One that runs behind communal crossing or you know, and so if you say so.

HOL taking care of that unclean.

Assume um you know, maybe it's a scenario where we assume maintenance of side yards where the city maintains an entry medium.

Um there are some cases where there is a little entry meeting going into the neighborhood, and we're maintaining that, but we're not retaining you know, next to the sidewalk.

So there's a maybe a couple couple scenarios there.

Everything all of those would represent increment incremental acreage for us to take on.

Um and then in part of that is the what are the factors to weigh when deciding to amend the ordinance, how to establish clear boundaries of what would be assumed so we can um you know part of that clear boundaries is to prevent creep in the future and you know try not to create interpretation scenarios, try to make it as uh clear as uh as possible.

HOA versus non-OHOA HOA standards.

Um, one of the things we uh one of the scenarios of side yards, some of those side yards are what we call end caps in subdivision development.

Um my HOA maintains all the end caps in uh my neighborhood, you know, wouldn't we want to prevent a scenario of a you know very witty HOA president saying, well, let's stop maintaining the end caps because the city will take it over for us.

Um then we're just becomes a uh you know self-affi uh uh uh prophecy.

Require uh wall openings or gate access and new developments where you have that rear yard scenario.

So these are some potential factors to weigh.

Really again um putting this as part just you know stone weed season, sharing it with the public, who are the main the maintenance responsibilities, how we currently tackle it.

Second, um, you know, if this is planting a seed for us, if this is something that you would like to look at in this upcoming year as part of our planning calendar, um, you know, so you know, so you can think about that between now and the September meeting on the September work session, September 19th.

With that, we individually and collectively stand for questions.

All right, Bob.

Hey, uh BJ, Amy, good job.

Matt gave me the 24-hour rule after that, so I'm good.

Um I guess I would be willing to go down the path.

And and so I'm I'm gonna just I'm looking at it because I know there's some areas that we've all discussed, and I don't want to get crazy and start assuming all of these drainage areas and just I I just want to dial it back, look at common sense approach and maybe talk through it at a later date, right?

Like during some of our planning and look at maybe picking up some of these, because I still have concerns with there's businesses that still aren't even cutting their weeds, and I can drive up in China Hills right now and look at it, and they're not even doing their part.

So it's not just the residents, it's a lot of folks, right?

But before we start assuming a whole bunch of new areas for your folks to work, BJ, because I know they're worked I I know they're working, I know they do their job.

And for trying to get another contractor in there because I know they kind of sometimes don't do all theirs.

But I do want to look at it because I think there is some areas that people don't know as theirs, and common sense-wise, would say that it probably shouldn't be, but then we need to look at the impact down the road.

So I'm I I'm open to further discussion if you all will will at least bring it to us and let us look at and maybe pick out those that one or not that one, but other ones just like it, because there is throughout the whole city areas that are just like that, and there's not a ton of them, but I don't want to start going down side yards and and all this other stuff.

I want to keep it kind of focused to what's something that you can maintain, and if we have to put more money into the weed stuff, that's what we're gonna do because I like having a clean city when that means trash, that means weeds, that means all of it, because it's very attractive when you drive down our our roadways that how pretty it is.

So I'd like to take a look at that.

And it is a path I want to go down, Matt, or at least talk about later on.

I don't want to get crazy with it, but I do want to look at it.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yeah, yes.

Um can I ask you about a specific street that I cannot find any anywhere on here?

Okay, Wexford.

Is Wexford a collector?

Or what is it?

I I know I know Mr.

Mayor can't be above.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor Councillor Dabson.

Um it's in transition.

I'll say that right now.

So currently it is a residential roadway.

So the property along the it's a diagonal road again, just like the last one.

So on the north, basically the north side, we own a piece of the city owns a piece of property called the REA Easement that was given to us years ago.

So on the north side, there's people that have their backyards that face the road.

Well, they would generally be responsible for maintenance of that area.

But because we are the property owner between the back of Curb and the back of the privacy wall, the city is responsible for maintenance of that that area there from Tarpin all the way to Unser Boulevard.

On the south side, effectively the south side of the road, there is a pond.

And so the city is responsible for that because we're the property owner there, but along the subdivision, closer to tarpin, that would be currently per the per the ordinance that we're talking about right now.

That would be the residents who live with their back to the road to clean that area as part of the ordinance.

Now, as part of the um DOT's requirement or request for functional classification of roadway changes, Wexer Road has been suggested to the DOT from the city to become a collector road.

If it becomes a collector road, then the whole corridor from Tarpane all the way to Unster Boulevard would be the city's responsibility, and we would take that over regardless of whatever we decide to do.

Okay.

So I'm not sure why this is happening or why this happened, but according to the residents who live along there, they have the back facing it up until this year.

And they didn't even know that they were supposed to they got a uh code enforcement.

So I don't know who was doing it before that for 20 or more years.

So I need to so it's not a collector current.

I need to let them know it's not a current currently a collector, it's in process of possibly becoming a collector.

Mr.

Mayor Councillor Tebson, that's correct.

Okay.

Um again we have to await for approval from DOT.

They're the ones that uh authorize us to make changes because that has implications, federal funding implications.

So they may come back and say yes or no.

But I do anticipate them saying yes.

Okay, you will let me know when that happens, right?

Correct.

Probably next year.

Okay.

Because it will take probably that long.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor Counselors, uh, you know, two things.

I mean, the the comment of they didn't know, we hear that a lot.

Um, you know, one, I think sometimes it's less noticeable than in the years that we don't have a lot of you know weeds and a lot of growth, so just kind of maybe out of sight, out of mind.

Um, but I also believe there's a landscaping ferry in the community um who goes out and randomly does uh make weed maintenance and clean up property and stuff like that.

So it's never been seen, but no, my understanding there is a landscaping theory.

I have a sneaking suspicion, my bank and centers are not going to be happy with that.

And maybe in the middle of the night, someone cleaned up the weeds.

Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor.

Councilor Weimer.

So I have a question that I think I know the answer to.

Who maintains all of these pink Amrab-owned lands?

Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Romer, I think I heard you say who maintains the AMREP stuff.

Amra.

Do they indeed?

Generally, right?

Or they don't.

And then they get notified as well that they're not they're in violation of weeds when that happens.

So in the Vista Hills area, occasionally every summer someone's like, hey, there's a tree in Crochet upon our backyard, we go and pull the plates and we look at everything to make sure that our map is correct and not incorrect, because that does happen occasionally.

And then if we find out that it's AMREP that owns it, then we transfer that to development services and code enforcement sends them uh a courtesy notice, and then I guess a final notice if they don't do the cleanup.

So that's the 128 acres that I was talking about in the presentation that are the large drainage areas.

Vista Hills has a bunch of them, uh River's Edge also has some as well, but there's others throughout the city that the AMREP maintain ownership of for some reason.

I'm not sure why they did that.

And unfortunately, some of those will have uh major capital costs if the city were to take them over because they haven't been maintained over the last 30 to 40 years, as well as maintenance obligations.

So I guess the the reason I asked that question is this kind of this kind of stems from a discussion I've been having with a lot of residents about the property formerly known as the golf course and why it's not being maintained and what is the city doing about it.

And I think one thing that maybe we ought to discuss further and and maybe expand on is are our penalties too small for large property owners?

Are they based on a an infraction, a one-time infraction, or are they should they be based on an acreage or a square footage and ramped up accordingly?

I think that would put at least a better tool in our toolbox for these large property owners, a better hammer to keep to say, okay, if you don't maintain it, you're gonna be fined, and it's not gonna be 100 dollars, it's gonna be 10,000 or whatever the number is.

So anyway, as we talk through this whole issue on weeds, maybe that's something we can add to the discussion.

That's all I have, Mr.

Mayor.

Anything further?

All right.

Well, hearing done.

Thank you all very much for those great presentations.

Appreciate the updates, and we are adjourned.