Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilor Colbreth, would you lead us, please?

Thank you.

Please remain standing as we take a moment to uh keep our first responders in our thoughts and prayers.

And we saw another uh tragic loss of an officer in an auto accident, a motorcycle accident up in uh Taos this past week of a uh Questa uh police officer, so we want to keep his family uh in our thoughts and prayers as well.

So, with that a moment of silence, please.

Thank you very much.

You may be seated.

Okay, please silence as we call this meeting to order.

Please silence all electronic devices while attending the governing body meeting.

For the record, I will announce the names of the governing body members when I say your name, please acknowledge your presence by saying presence, counselor Dabson.

Present.

Thank you, Councillor Lennon.

See, is Councillor Lynn Time going to be online this evening?

Okay, we'll we'll keep an eye out for him.

Counselor Tyler, who is attending virtually, present.

Thank you, Councillor Weimer.

Present.

Counselor Colbras.

Present.

Counselor List.

Present.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to public forum.

Each comment will be limited to two minutes, and no more than two hours in total will be allotted.

Uh Mr.

Van Horn.

Good evening, Mayor, Counselors.

Um in August, the 14th of August, I came before you and I gave you a list of questions and asked if you would consider them.

I'm not going to uh go into detail.

One of the things he said to me was Steve, you know this stuff because for a while I was on the city's uh utilities commission, and he's right.

I do know the answers to these questions.

My asking you was not for my benefit, it was to ask all of you counselors to really consider these things.

Three things that the mayor said confirm one of the concerns I have.

He did say that there is issues with the injection system, and the cost to really make the thing work is significant, but they're looking at that.

He did also admit that the cost of removing PFAs, that's what everyone knows those as forever chemicals is very high, very high, and probably is only gonna get higher.

And then he also talked about the removal, the cost of removing medications from the wastewater before it's injected, which is so expensive, the EPA won't even set standards for it.

But what I ask all of you to do is consider what I'm gonna send you all.

I'm gonna I'm gonna send you the answers that the mayor gave me.

I'll email it all to you.

The reason I keep coming before you is not because I want to give you any grief.

The reason I keep coming before you is because I know that there's substantial issues facing the city with water and wastewater, and it doesn't really matter how many water permits we get.

Or those that's not the answer because you can have the rights to water, but if there's no water, it doesn't matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um let's see here.

Tammy Zach.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Tammy Zach.

Uh first I wanted to say thank you for your time and for listening.

Um I do want to say thank you to Mayor as well as Deb Dobson.

The issue that I am going to bring up tonight, we have been um talking for quite a few months with the mayor and Deb, so I appreciate you guys for listening and always being there to hear us out.

I wanted to bring up tonight the um ordinance that we have for our horses out in our E1 zoned properties in Rio Rancho.

Now I'm not originally from New Mexico.

I'm originally from New Jersey.

I came out to New Mexico 32 years ago because I am a horse-driven person and I love the wild wild west, and so I came out here to create a new life out here from being from the inner city of New Jersey.

I do have two horses right now in an E1 property.

And I'd like to bring to the table if you guys can actually try to change the ordinance to having two horses per acre instead of one per acre and then one after that.

Horse people know that horses uh live together, they are not um a solo animal like dogs or cats, they are a huge pack animal, and so even though we know that we bought property out there that was E1, and it said one horse per acre.

Um, I'm not sure why the ordinance has not changed because you know we are in 2025, and we um this ordinance I think went out back in the 80s, and we do feed our horses manually, so it's not like something where we can graze our horses anymore out there.

It's all dirt as we know, and so we feed our horses manually.

So even if we had two horses on one acre, it's plenty of room for them to roam to exercise to have a round pin.

And so I'm bringing it to the table to see if there's any possibility to get the ordinance changed, um, being that we've again it's back in the 80s, and just to bring it up to speed and um for us to be able to have our two horses and not have to get rid of the one horse.

So I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, that's concludes public comment.

Moving on to comments by counselors.

Hearing none, um, I'll be moving 026 and R23 to be heard after the consent calendar.

If there are no objections from the city council.

Hearing none, I'll take a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I move to approve the second calendar.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Davis, the consent calendar, please.

Thank you, sir.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Councillor Colbrand.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Councilor Dabson.

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

The consent calendar is approved.

Okay.

And moving on to boards and commissions.

Don't have anything there.

Second reading of ordinances.

This is 026 authorizing the issuance of City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico water and wastewater system improvement revenue bonds.

Um let's see here.

Uh, Director Jaramillo is presenting on this one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

Good evening.

Financial Services Department is seeking adoption of this ordinance, which establishes the parameters for issuance of a utilities revenue bond with the aggregate principal amount not to exceed 25 million.

The bonds will be issued for the purpose of financing improvements to the city's water and wastewater systems.

As you know, the utility has a large capital improvement plan that totals 218.4 million dollars over the next five years, which carries us through FY2030.

As part of the ICIP process, the city planned on adding a bonding cycle to the utility as part of a longer-term funding strategy to meet the infrastructure needs that are both uh growth and non-growth related to the city.

Like the geobonding cycle, the strategy allows for maintaining debt service at levels that are predictable and stable while providing funds for large projects.

Like the geobonding cycle, it helps the city to maintain a stable debt mill rate.

A cycle within the utility will assist the city in its efforts to keep the water and wastewater rates as stable as possible over the long run.

The city's capital plan on which our current rates were based for the next four fiscal years in the current fiscal year.

We have contemplates two 25 million dollar bond issuances within our five-year planning period.

The ordinance and proposed parameters are for the uh for the first of these two bond issuances.

The bonds may be sold by competitive or negotiated sale, depending on what is in the best interest of the city at the time that the bonds go to market.

As previously noted, the aggregate principal amount will not exceed 25 million dollars.

The pledged revenue is the utility's net revenue.

The rate will not exceed 12%, and the final maturity will not be beyond May 15th of 2057.

Further, if the city chooses to use a negotiated sale, there are limitations on the underwriters discount, which will not exceed 1%.

Finally, the proposed ordinance does delegate authority to the mayor, city manager, and finance director to sign any and all documents that are necessary to facilitate the sale.

This is the second reading of this proposed ordinance, and staff is recommending approval.

Thank you.

I will take a motion to approve 026.

I move to approve 026.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Anyone signed up to speak on 026?

No, sir.

Okay.

Any comments by council.

Okay.

Hearing none.

Ms.

Davis, 026, please.

Thank you.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Councillor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Councilor Colbreth?

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

O 26 is approved.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to R 123 resolution designating voting convenience centers and consolidation of precincts.

Ms.

Davis.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening, counselors and Mr.

Mayor.

So tonight I have a revised designated polling locations.

I ran into some trouble in trying to locate commercial locations that not only met the designated polling areas that we needed a location in, but more importantly, we're ADA accommodating to our voters.

And so therefore I've had to revise this.

It will come before you one more time after Sandoval County adds in in the staff.

Sorry, in the Secretary of State approves the additional precincts.

However, how it's been set up is that we will be able to simply insert the additional precincts as I've left blank spaces in.

Okay.

Take a motion to approve our 123.

Motion to approve our 123.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Is anybody signed up to speak on this item?

No, sir.

Okay.

Any comments by council?

All right.

Hearing none.

R 123.

Great.

Thank you.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Councillor Weimer?

Yes.

Councillor Colbreth.

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

R23 is approved.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to public hearings.

R 122 resolution of the City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, updating the development process manual.

We're going to be hearing from staff on both R 122 and 027, which is the Chapter 155 subdivision section ordinance.

Now this will be the first reading of the 155 ordinance.

So there will be a second reading on this in the next governing body meeting.

And we're going to take all comments on 122, and then when we get to 027, we'll take comments on that as well, and then we'll take a vote on that.

But there will not be another staff presentation on that one.

Okay.

So Mr.

Income, Director Rincomb, 122, please.

R 122.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and other members of the governing body, and we were in cone directory development services.

So as mayor was stating, uh I'll be presenting number items 10 and 12 together.

Um R 122 is a resolution that would adopt the updated development process manual, and then item number 12 is ordinance number 27, which would uh be the first reading of a text amendment to chapter 155, which is um on subdivisions.

So uh the DPM is uh the consolidator and the organizer and our how-to guide for development.

Uh, this exhibit is um early in the document to help visualize how the DPM actually pulls everything together.

Uh so it carries out the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, it coordinates and clarifies the development process and procedures, provides uniform standards for development, provides the basic criteria necessary to ensure acceptable levels of performance and safety for public facilities related to development, and then it assures adequate monumentation and documentation of land division.

And then it assures adequate monumentation and documentation of land division.

And so what I really mean with those last couple of bullets is it it helps give us an understanding of the solid infrastructure and make sure that as it's coming from the public sector to the private sector for that warranty period that we have that there are certain standards and regulations that we are following.

For the goals that we have been looking at for this update, it has been 15 years since this document was originally adopted.

We have learned a lot of lessons in that 15 years.

We are looking at improving readability, we're looking at updating our processes because some of them are just outdated, making sure that we're also incorporating community and citizen feedback.

For the users of the DPM, there is uh starts with the public and the residents, uh it outlines our processes for development applications, including helping residents understand at what steps certain documents are required.

Um, and so for an example of this would be when we have a lot of zone map amendments, there's a lot of questions about traffic impact analysis and and what you know should they everybody wants it at the zone map amendment stage, but it comes later, right?

And so the DPM helps give an outline of when those documents are going to be required.

For developers, oops, sorry, uh it provides uh the processes, design standards for the infrastructure that they're building.

For staff, it serves as a reference for staff to apply uniform standards in a consistent manner.

Uh so my colleagues and I work closely on balancing the impacts of growth and development on municipal operations when inheriting or accepting infrastructure.

We then own, operate, and maintain these for a lifetime of either the infrastructure or in perpetuity, depending on the life cycle.

On the screen is an excerpt from chapter 150, which establishes the DPM committee and the DPM process.

You can see in the TEAL the outside members ensuring external input.

For this update, these included the Home Builders Association of Central New Mexico, the Public Works Association New Mexico chapter, and NAOP.

The city invited these industry groups as a voice in the advocacy for the development community.

The ordinance is intentional in building in this outside involvement.

For a quick recap, staff has continued to meet with stakeholders, and there has been a few areas that continue to be sticking points.

At the October 14th Planning and Zoning Board meeting, again, we heard from stakeholders and the PCB board about the acreage master plans, ownership, and then the parks under three acres.

This is a list of the meetings that we held.

Our meetings date back to December of 2021.

We've had over three dozen meetings, including multiple work sessions.

We have proposed a lot of updates through an iterative process that includes input from the DPM committee and the stakeholders.

We added a standardized waiver process because we have learned that developments are unique.

They all have unique conditions, and we want to allow for deviations and to actually minimize the number of subdivision variances that go in front of PCB, but still allow staff to ensure compliance with national standards and best practices.

We've also extended the approval period for preliminary plats to two years.

And there's some other points that I've that I'll cover throughout the presentation on this slide.

So I'm not going to go through everything.

Couple of notable items.

So here are the three things that I mentioned a couple of slides back that we have hit those sticking points on.

Staff has spent hours in discussion, and we we still feel that what we're proposing is very important, and we're still moving forward with these proposals.

I will go into detail on master plans and moving that requirement from 20 acres down to 10 acres, the 90% ownership about parks being within a half mile of subdivisions and then being HOA owned.

We are not proposing any major deviations to road standards.

One thing I have like a little footnote here at the bottom.

So our at the time that the current DPM was adopted, the comprehensive plan that was in place was the Vision 2020 comp plan.

And one of the things that that Comp plan talked about when it came to master planning is that master planning should be required for large scale developments for the development of growth nodes, gateway vicinity planning areas, or for projects that encompass 20 acres or more, or that present special development problems, such as multiple law assemblages.

So we actually think that that we're in line with that last statement on our proposal to move this down to 10 acres.

So for the proposed changes for master plans, we're talking about starting master plans at 10 acres with 90% ownership.

So why are we doing this?

Because I went to a planning conference and they told us we should do it.

No, I'm kidding.

It was a really bad joke.

But we we really based it on qualitative insights.

We were looking at the built environment.

We're looking at monitoring the growth patterns for the city, and then we're also looking at citizen feedback.

So I apologize for the next couple of charts, but uh bear with me.

Uh so that's why we have uh uh some printed versions of them.

Um this is slide 12 if you're uh trying to look at it a little bit closer.

What we did here is we actually aggregated a few of the larger communities like Lomus and Catadas to kind of uh save some line space.

But what we have here is the trend lines for residential subdivisions since 2010.

Um and so we're moving chronologically since the adoption of the DPM.

Um but what you'll notice is that most of the subdivisions that um that come online really started in 2017.

There are about 30 uh give or take 35 subdivisions on this um on this table that we're talking about today.

The majority of them are in the range between 10 to 50 acres, the exception being Lost De Montes, Lomus and Contatus and Stone Gate, which are all uh much larger than those.

Uh there are only five subdivisions in the past 15 years that don't have HOAs.

Um are actually under three acres in size, um, and the the one um uh outlier in that one is Yellow Norte, uh which actually came online in about 2013.

Um we probably missed a couple of subdivisions in this chart.

Uh we were trying to pull uh as much data as fast as we could.

Um so it's it's an extensive list, but it's not exhaustive.

Uh, but it hopefully helps convey and confirm the trends of smaller subdivisions and a uh a really uh a move towards HOAs.

We feel that we're seeing more HOAs with these uh subdivisions because of uh the need for maintenance for monumentation signage, uh landscaping around mailbox clusters and caps, and then for the on-site ponds.

Okay, so uh I I mentioned this is also a really it's an ISOR, it's hard, right?

Um, to read.

But what we have here is um another slide talking about what we have termed uh islands and barnacles and and park deserts.

Um so what we have with this when I when I say the word island subdivision, it is a standalone subdivision, um, and then we have barnacles, which would be um kind of attached or close to a larger uh development or a larger existing subdivision, and then um these types of subdivisions generally uh seem to have park deserts.

Uh I can show you a few pictures of these areas.

Uh I've got a couple of slides further on, but um I left them out for this portion just to kind of keep flowing.

Uh so this table highlights that um whether there is a master plan, uh you can see in that that like third column, uh, whether there is a park.

Uh, what you'll see is that um of all of the subdivisions that we have listed here, only really two of them are within a half mile of a of a park.

Uh, and so um, and then the the couple that are are close by, uh, one of those would be Cielo Grande.

Um, and so this one, and I think a lot of people know the story, but just really briefly, um, this was a subdivision.

Uh, it's it's south of Paseo de Vlacon, and or south of King, excuse me, and Paseo de VlaCon, and uh west of UNSER.

Uh, and when it was built, didn't come in with a park, and so there was neighborhood uh students who were out playing in the Mesa.

Uh, they had picked up all the pallets and other items and um that were illegally dumped, and they were using that as a playground, and so it became important, uh and there was a big request to build the park, right?

Um, and so that land was uh donated, the funds were used from CDBG to actually build the park for the area.

Uh when we look at the citizen survey, this was discussed at a work session.

Um, so um I'm not gonna get into too many details on it, but what we see is lower scores and trends and key measurements around development, the quality of life, and walkability.

So we feel as staff that all of those things I just mentioned can actually be achieved through master plans.

Master plans can help us achieve better development, more walkability, and at the most basic level, the master plan is a guide on how decisions are made for the property.

A master plan is a document for the development of land that includes the intended use, streets, timing of development, open space, utilities, drainage, and interrelationship between the plan and the existing comprehensive plan, and if relevant, any specific area plans.

So it actually brings to life the built environment.

It's very hard for the public to read a preliminary plot or any of those other type of technical documents, but a master plan is specifically built for readability.

It helps ensure also the installation of infrastructure, implementation and execution of specific area plans, and it gives you that fit and functionality with the surrounding areas.

Okay, so now uh on to the acreage part of things.

Um, so you've heard me say 10 acres multiple times.

Uh currently the DPM has master plans starting at 20 acres.

We're proposing to take that down to 10.

As mentioned previously, the old Vision 2020 comprehensive plan had a expectation that master plans would assure compatible land uses, land uses, encourage development guidelines, according to the predetermined design and amenity standards, coordinate land uses with transportation systems, control development, phasing, and assure installation of adequate infrastructure.

So for our plans in the 10 to 20 acre range, a site analysis is not going to be required as part of the master plan.

So another way of saying that is we're we're not going to be requesting a soil study.

But there does need to be conceptual plans on utilities, circulations, grading and drainage to help put into perspective what is going to occur and how the new development will tie into the existing neighborhoods, road networks, utilities, and storm drainage.

Also, how will this new development tie into the existing specific area plan if applicable?

So I think I've used this example multiple times when we talk about the Lomas Negro specific area plan, and we talk about how that plan calls out for an east-west roadway that has a trail system.

And so, as we have had multiple developments come in, those developments we needed to make sure that that trail was on the same side of the road, that it all connected.

And so those are types of the implementation that we can ensure is is taking place correctly through the master plan to implement that specific area plan.

Once again, the recommendation is a slim down master plan starting at 10 acres for the benefits outlined in the previous slides and just in general for better neighborhoods.

So for ownership percentage requirement, uh what I'm gonna do is have a couple of examples on the next two slides that I hope help uh contextualize or or illustrate why 90% seems to help ensure uh cohesive neighborhood design and why 80% seems to start to create these skeletor subdivisions.

So looking at an example of high range six, this subdivision tells a couple of different stories.

So on the right hand side, it shows what a 90% ownership looks like, and on the left hand side it shows what 60% looks like.

When you combine both of these phases together, it shows you what 80% ownership is.

90% gives flexibility, but it also still allows for a cohesive development.

Um there will still be problems with holdout lots that lead to issues with dust, dirt and roads, disjointed sidewalks, the possibility of illegal dumping, trespassing, the need for temporary construction easements, um, all of those types of things still exist anytime that we have holdout lots.

When we look at high range five, um, this actually shows 96% ownership for us as staff.

This is not just about processing and application, uh, but it is about the built environment and and as what I've been trying to describe is a cohesive neighborhood design.

As you can see, this is the underpinnings for why we're recommending 90% for ownership of master plan boundaries.

Next up, we're talking about parks.

So why are we recommending the park standards?

I'm going to cover some of the data that validates the observations of park deserts that I started describing in slide 13.

In your agenda briefing memorandum, we have included a white paper on park access.

This on the left hand side is an excerpt on where Rio Rancho ranks.

So 58% of our residents have access to a park within half a mile.

And you can see that Albuquerque has 91%, Clovis has 51%, and so there's a lot of numbers in between as well, but it's a really interesting really interesting document.

So the next thing is we feel that access to parks is also something that was echoed in the citizen survey.

So the next slide is a picture of just one part of the city from Park Serve.

We could have done this in a whole bunch of areas.

This was just the first screenshot that we grabbed.

And so what you'll see is in the dark green, that is a public park.

In that lighter green is what would be within a 10 10 minute walk or a half mile distance.

And then if there is no green on top of it, that means that there is no park in that area.

And so we're calling those the those would be those park deserts.

When we get to those smaller lots, it decreases the private outdoor space.

It gets a lot of space to be able to utilize privately.

But as the lots have drink are starting to shrink, there needs to be other options.

Here's a real life example of a park desert.

So going from the entrance of Wallin Park to Sugar Park, we're talking roughly a mile.

So that's a 20-minute walk.

And then that is doesn't have sidewalks the whole way, so it's not exactly the nicest way to get to the park.

But we could we had multiple examples of the same type of issues on being able to get safely to us to an open park space like this.

So for the park standards, the top line for some of the notable items.

So currently as existing, and we're not proposing to change this section, that parks should be for every there should be three acres for every 1,000 residents, and we determine that number based on per every one dwelling unit that we assume that there is 2.83 people living in that dwelling unit.

Our updates would add parks within a half mile, and that parks under three acres would be HOA owned.

So what we have below in the next two items are just kind of some examples.

So if you have 100 homes, approximately 15 to 20 acres, you would have a park requirement of 0.85 acres, and that parkland could be dedicated to the city or in in lieu of payment.

With the updates, that 0.85 acres of parkland would be privately maintained.

As a second example, 50 homes, somewhere in that eight to 10 acre subdivision size, you would have a parkland requirement of 0.425 acres of parkland that under current standards could be dedicated to the city or have an in-lue of payment with the proposed updates.

That parkland would be privately maintained, or it within a half mile walk to a park would not be needed.

So here's a couple of alternatives to the park requirement.

While the vast majority of subdivisions is as we've talked about have been coming in with HOAs, there are some alternatives to having HOAs or having the park requirement for the HOA.

And so if a subdivision is within a half mile of a public park, this would include city, county, state, SKFA, the mid-region C G C D.

Also if it's within a half mile and you have a partnership with another HOA, we would need to have written consent for that.

If there is a park within a that is special district funded and maintained, so if there's a park that's put in because it's part of a PID or a TID metropolitan redevelopment area that includes a TIFF.

If there is some deal that gets uh put together that has city contracted maintenance on a park space, so those are all options.

The other things I want to point out, a couple of other tools that are available, would be that we have an administrative variance process just in the land use chapter in general that gives 10% deviation for distance or acreage.

Plus, we specifically built in based on feedback and requests that the park uh acreage flexibility be within 10% in the ordinance itself.

Um and then uh we also based on feedback built in that the parkland, if it is privately owned, does not need to be contiguous and can be broken up into multiple um multiple pieces.

So uh next on to roadways, the city adopted its first DPM in 2010.

Uh prior to that, the standards varied, and in hindsight, neighborhoods that were built prior to 2010 have insufficient drainage and the roads have not fared well.

Um and so uh 2010 when the current DPM was put into place uh established development standards for modern subdivisions.

We do not feel that we should be uh deviating or lessening any of our standards.

Um we have received stakeholder feedback to reduce the standards for construction, talking about the possibility of asphalt on sand, talking about estate curbs, talking about um uh insufficient um off-site requirements, um, and staff does not recommend any of those standards.

Um I will add to it though, we do understand every subdivision has its own unique characteristics.

We just want to make sure that we're we have that baseline set up, we have the waiver process built in so that we have a formalized way of reviewing if there needs to be some deviations from the process, um, that there's options we're formalizing how to be able to request that for uh roads.

One of the things that we did add in was uh pointing back to our traffic calming policy.

Uh it's not a requirement, uh, but we feel that it's going to help open up a discussion on streetscape and traffic calming.

Um, really, this is going to be really applicable in areas near schools, uh neighborhoods that start to have cut through roads, uh development configurations where the street layouts lead to in-neighborhood speeding.

Um the images are screenshots from the traffic calming policy, it shows just a couple of examples.

If you were to put in uh some bulb outs, some mediums, those types of things that just help slow down traffic.

Uh staff feels that if those are implemented early on, and actually with the construction of the subdivisions, uh it's it's better than trying to tack it on 10 to 15 years later when there's issues with speeding.

So uh just trying to get ahead of those.

So uh one of the last things that I'm going to touch on on proposed updates.

So there was a request to add in some lines about uh on the 10-day review period, if if we uh staff don't get back within that time period that it be deemed complete and scheduled for meetings.

In reviewing our preliminary plot applications for the last two years, um, staff has responded around 95% of the time within 10 days.

Um, and so we we do look for completeness for an application.

We ensure that all the documents are provided.

Uh we look at uh deeming an application complete and making sure that that if if they are deemed complete without all of the information, if we schedule uh without having all the information, uh we feel like it is likely going to waste applicants' time, uh lead to more postponements and other items like that.

Staff tries to ensure quick reviews of applications for completeness, um, but we do have to be aware of staffing issues, application volumes, and other outside factors that may impact our review times.

And so uh right now I I feel like we're doing a really good job, and so I don't necessarily want to fix something that I don't feel is is broken at this moment.

On the um last slide, last three slides technically, but uh last big slide that I'm gonna be talking about today is is what we're calling the residential development pipeline.

Um so the city has added over 5,200 single family homes since 2020.

There's approximately 43,000 homes in Rio Rancho.

So in the past five or so years, we have added 12% of our home stock in that time frame, right?

That 5,000 houses, that's been in the past five years.

That is a large volume of houses.

The city has made up uh over 40% of the metro areas um uh market share.

Um, and that's including Santa Fe.

So we are putting in or absorbing the majority of or close to uh the majority of the houses in the metro region and and our metro region again, Santa Fe to Las Lunas.

That's a big area uh and we're absorbing a lot of that um a lot of that those houses.

When we look ahead, the pipeline for residential development on that first slide um is the preliminary plats that we know are coming really close in the short term.

Um we feel that there is a good seven-year plus pipeline that we can see very closely or are really in line.

Uh that middle middle column is approved master plans with preliminary plats that we know are going to be coming in the next two years.

Um actually Zuma Ranch has now been bumped.

It's it's moved from the second column into the first column because uh we have it and it's it's gonna be reviewed um and put on the agenda pretty quick for PCB.

Uh and then longer range.

We know that we have uh some really big developments uh coming online in the next um 10 to 15 years.

So we feel that there is a long uh development roadway in place, but we want to make sure that we have the standards and regulations in place to make sure that we can have good infrastructure when all of these houses come online.

So uh I'm gonna end with but what if we totally got it wrong?

What if we have um messed all this stuff up?

Um one.

I truly feel that we haven't.

I feel that we have a lot of of good data and understanding of what's going on.

Um we've taken a lot of time with this document, and so um, so I don't think we have, but if we have, we have built in the waiver process.

So we have specifically given a way to have developers formally request deviations.

Uh we have put in um it's required in ordinance that we review this document every two years at a minimum.

Doesn't mean that we can't come back in six months if we broke something, we can come back and we will fix it.

Um, and and I hope that that you've seen me enough up here bring stuff back.

If things don't work, we we bring it back.

So um with that, um uh up on the screen is the findings for the development process manual.

Uh staff recommends approval, and then for the first reading of chapter 155, staff also recommends approval, and I will stand for any questions.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body, if I could uh add on a little bit to um director in cone, Amy's uh presentation uh with us a couple comments.

Um first I would like to thank Amy, Brian, Michelle, um, really kind of the lead on the DPM team, but also the rest of the DPM team, the city staffers, several of them are here in the room this evening.

They're the committee who become the stewards of the assets and the infrastructure dedicated to the city.

They're the ones tasked with the imperative and the challenge of balancing the impacts of growth and development.

That is to support development today while trying to balance the future impacts and strains that it can cause on the city.

We referenced the citizen survey today a couple times.

We started the citizen survey in 2015 as an initiative uh Mr.

Wells here.

We have completed six cycles now.

It has been a helpful and insightful tool in establishing and guiding administrative funding and policy decisions.

We know, for instance, it has a very high correlation forecasting voter support for general obligation bonds.

As direct as highlighted by Amy, our scores in neighborhood design and quality of life related, um, you know, quality of life related items are lower, middle of the pack, and don't necessarily have a good trend line.

Now, if we're middle of the pack across the board in the citizen survey, I would say mom, dad, C's get degrees.

What's the big deal?

But the fact of the matter is um, you know, we score very well in several categories in the in the citizen survey.

We score very well in public safety, um, we score well uh in transparency, trust and government.

We're actually top five in three categories um and polco as us uh up for an award for being in the in the top five.

So it is a little bit of a haves and halves not when we compare that section to the broader um you know section the the broader citizen survey.

We like to feel that the changes on parks and master planning actually support continued development for the long term, you know, for the long term for the development community, for the long term for the city, and hopefully hopefully, yes, help us improve our survey scores, or at a minimum, not add to the core issues that was exhibited in I think was 22 or 24 of those neighborhoods that are park deserts, and that we have large swallows of the city here aren't benefiting from well-designed neighborhoods or park access.

The proposed chapter 155 and DPM have many betterments for the development community, as Amy highlighted early on, the waiver process, preliminary plats being uh the two years, um, the removal of the site in the rear PUE, so we don't have to process unnecessary subdivision variances.

Those are smart, good corrections.

Um it also helps our community, our existing community, and some people are moving into these neighborhoods, they're not all new to Rio Rancho.

Sometimes there are residents who are here who are looking to move into a larger house as they grow a family.

Others are looking at the downsize for other reasons.

But it helps our community see the direction of growth and create neighborhoods that age well.

We have worked on the DPM in chapter 155 for three and a half plus years now.

We as staff bring forward recommendations based on our professional experience, lessons learned, and acquired knowledge.

I think the DPM team has a century and a half of experience with the city.

I think there's five or six folks who actually worked on the first one in 2010 are working on this one today.

We have reviewed, reconsidered stress test our recommendations based on the input that we've received from that the from the development community, more specifically the individuals in the room this evening on parks and master plans.

At the end of the day, as we work through those and look at the those, we and we stress test them, we come back to what we think these are the best recommendations for the city.

We put them forward to you as decisions, as recommendations, since we believe they do the best in balancing development and looking ahead to the city's future.

That said, ultimately you, the governing body, are the policymakers.

We'd like to bring this to closure this evening.

You obviously know our recommendations.

We at we ask that that you vote this evening, be it up, be it down, or with amendments.

We'd like to move forward with an implementation on January 1, if that's the decision, or if we're continuing with the current DPM in chapter 155, we know what that is.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

Amy, myself, and other members of the DPM committee are we'll stand for questions at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you.

Um, before I take public comment, I do have to have a motion and a second on the floor.

Um so I'll go ahead and take a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

All right.

Um see here.

We're gonna start with uh looks like let me see here, real quick, make sure we get these in the best order possible.

Uh Mr.

Spengler.

And this is on item 12, the DPM.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, my name is Matthew Spangler.

I live at 3216 Renaissance Drive, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, 87124.

Uh I I too would like to thank staff for their hard work on this uh DPM update.

Uh I am in favor of a number of the changes.

I'm here today just simply to ask you to make two revisions, two very simple revisions to what's being proposed to you in the updated DPM.

The first is to reduce the minimum ownership threshold for master plans from the proposed 90 to 51.

Second, to increase the minimum acreage trigger for master plans from 10 acres to 50 acres.

And I've delivered to all of you a lengthy letter that supports these two changes.

I'm gonna highlight those things today and I'll hopefully answer any questions you may have had about my letter.

Uh as you may be aware, the planning and zoning commission recommended denial of this matter at its meeting last week.

And the reason it did that was primarily because of the two changes, the two provisions that I'm requesting you to change.

If you make the changes I request, I believe that would address uh the majority of the PNZ's reasons for recommending denial.

First, I'd like to address the minimum ownership percentage.

The minimum raising, I'm sorry, a lower ownership percentage for master plans is better for the city.

Why?

Because one of our biggest problems in Rio Rancho, as you know, and as the comprehensive plan states is antiquated plotting.

We have uh large area of our city that has antiquated plattering.

The comprehensive plan repeatedly says that's one of the two top issues, uh antiquated plotting, and that planning is the uh remedy for that issue.

If you have a 90 percent ownership requirement, it makes it very difficult to get a master plan together.

To get 90 percent ownership uh makes it all often logistically and economically unfeasible to do a master plan.

I I think you all know often you can't even find people who own the lots.

There's people you you go and they bought it a long ago and you can't find them.

Other people are investors and they're they're asking uh huge prices for their lots.

So it it 90 percent is not feasible, uh, and it defeats the purpose of overcoming antiquated plating.

For example, I want to give you two examples that are in my letter.

One is the city center master plan.

In the city center master plan, the city put that plan forward, and the city only owned or controlled 59% of the land.

41% of the land was in multiple ownership.

This plan was put forward in 2006 and was updated as recently as 2022 with only 59 percent ownership.

That was smart.

We we needed to control and do a master plan for the area to the west of here.

The city owned this land, but the city west of here is the entrance to this land.

We needed to do a master plan where there wasn't 100 percent ownership, there wasn't 90 percent ownership.

Can I I'm giving everybody three minutes on this one?

Um go ahead if you if uh we'll go ahead and have you wrap up as quick as possible.

But the other uh is the Paradise West master plan where the applicant only owned 25 percent.

I I just want to make sure you know that I think city staff is is concerned about the ownership because there's a concern of one person planning another person's property.

But remember, master plans do not zone property, it's only a policy document.

It's advisory in nature, it adds structure and predictability.

Also, master plans do not remove existing um entitlements.

So the person who has the R1 lot has the R1 lot even after the master plan's done.

It doesn't hurt the person, it often helps them.

Also, another reason is that master plans generally increase the value of adjacent properties.

You were shown a picture of uh high range six.

All those lots that weren't shown subdivided, they all now have paved roads near them, utilities near them, drainage structures near them.

Those owners have actually been benefited.

Third, and this is important uh a master plan offers early notice of what the city wants in that area.

What we want is we want to be able to do a master plans earlier, not later.

We don't want to wait until we get 90 percent ownership, we want to do them earlier so that people in that area will know what you all are thinking should be developed there.

Last my last point is on the uh acreage trigger for master plans.

The reason why I'm asking for it to go from 10 acres to 50 acres is that um first the the 10 acres is contrary to your approved existing comprehensive plan.

That plan specifically says that master plans are for uh areas of over a hundred acres.

Also, your existing DPM says master plans are for areas of at least 20 acres, but usually more like a hundred acres.

Those are quotes from from the existing city documents.

The reason that those documents say that, they didn't just come up with those numbers out of thin air.

The reason that they came up with them is because to do a master plan is very expensive, and you have to have engineers, architects, a number of professionals, and the smaller your development, the less you can spread those costs over over the lots.

And so the at a certain size, master plans are not feasible economically, and so we would like you to set that at 50 acres rather than the 20 acres existing or the 10 acres that's proposed.

And the purpose of both of these asks is to promote master planning to help solve the antiquated uh plattering issue and to better the city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Mr.

Mayor, I'm to recognize Councillor Lennon Time as anybody.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, I meant to say that uh the um uh counselor Linantine has joined the meeting, so thank you.

I meant to say that and he joined uh earlier.

Mr.

Mayor Mayor, yes.

This is Councilor Tyler.

Yes, Counselor Tyler.

Uh I would like to just ask if we could uh I know everyone's supposed to only speak three minutes, and I I think that's enough time.

I mean, uh I don't know how many speakers we have, but uh allowing people to continue to go on and on and on.

I I would let's just hear for the three minutes.

We've already read letters, we've heard phone calls.

I just want to want to make sure that everyone gets their time.

Yeah, no, thank you, Counselor Tyler.

I was gonna remind everybody that we do have a three-minute uh speaking time, and I'm also gonna have the speaking on both on both items.

So Jared Liker.

Mr.

Mayor, I'm Brian Audon with Southwest.

I'd like to start off where we're we've got a team approach presentation that I'd like to start with.

Okay.

Um, but in the interest of time, um, I just want to say that we are in agreement with what Mr.

Spengler stated.

Um he pretty much covered everything that I was going to discuss.

Uh so with that, I'd like to turn it over to uh Kerry Plant to uh follow up on some of our okay.

So we're gonna pick one speaker for three minutes.

I I called Jared, so we'll let's decide the order so that we can go one, two, three.

Okay, are you introduced Carrie and then Jared?

Okay, let's do that.

All right, so I apologize.

No, that's okay.

So uh Brian Aragon, just for the record, and if you'll state that, and then we're gonna do Carrie next.

Okay.

I I was trying to go by the time stamps here, but I only had one with a timestamp on it.

So anyway, so and then we'll do Jared after that.

Perfect.

All right, Brian, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate you.

Carrie Plant, um, 809 Fifth Street Northeast, Rio Rancho.

Um, thank you, Brian, for opening for us.

Mayor, counselors.

While Amrep has continued to take one of the few public facing leads on presenting these remaining critical issues, other builders and developers who were surveyed regarding these items are in agreement with our position.

However, some of them did not agree to be publicly disclosed for fear of repercussion by staff.

If the DPM and ordinance updates receive a passing vote today, we ask that they be done so, either amending the requirements to our suggestions on these three critical items or tabling them so that we can continue to work towards a sensible solution.

Um, my first issue is on parks and maintenance.

The first problem is that small parks are being required to be privately owned and maintained by an HOA with no alternatives.

Um, Director Wincone pointed out that there are alternatives for the half mile access, but not for the actual ownership and maintenance.

This is not economical for small subdivisions due to the significant fixed costs, which will result in dues that are not affordable to homeowners.

It feels somewhat like an unfunded mandate.

And the second problem is double charging for the impact of parks on new residents.

This appears to be an impact fee, which requires compliance with state statute.

If so, will the city then waive impact fees because the parks are private, or will they issue impact fee credits for the land and construction?

Also, if the parks are private, will the city be arresting trespassers?

Um while we agree that all residents should have the right to access and enjoy all parks in Rio Rancho.

In order for that goal to be met, just like other city amenities, such as pools and libraries, these parks should be built by the city.

They they should be built, excuse me, by the developer who will receive impact fee credits, but be owned, funded, and maintained by the city.

It is not appropriate to require islands of privately funded amenities.

Seems to be a slippery slope to go down.

As what other city services come next on the heels of this.

Thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

Jared Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Governing Body.

Jared Liker, 409 New Mexico Highway 528.

Reordinary Mexico.

Um, the last concern in the handout that we gave you was with regards to road improvements for new subdivisions.

The current DPM sets a blank requirement to pave pre-existing unpaved roads and install sidewalks and curves surrounding a subdivision.

We believe there are several issues with that requirement.

First, not all roads adjacent to a subdivision are needed to facilitate traffic flow around or through a subdivision.

This requirement adds roads to the city's inventory prematurely.

As a result of that inventory, it also adds an unnecessary burden for maintenance by the city.

Curbs placed outside the subdivision in front of lots not owned by the developer could be interpreted as blocking access to the property, resulting in an imminent domain complaint against the city.

Building full sections of roadways which are classified as arterials is is costly and not practical for smaller size developments.

So in the slides that I provided you, I had some examples of how this requirement was not followed in recent developments.

So Montezuma Boulevard at Broadmoor Heights is a principal arterial and current is currently paved only one lane in each direction.

Galahat Street on the east side of Broadmoor Heights is not paved at all.

And then if you let flip to the next section, Kaiser Road north of Broadmoor Heights, not paved.

Sirius Road at Enchanted Hills, as well as Viga and Isabel at Los Diamantes are adjacent roads to development, which are not paved.

I believe that all these cases, in all these cases, the traffic flow is functioning appropriately and not paving these roads, had no negative impact on the adjacent properties.

In conclusion, we believe that the issue again, the blanket requirement for paving pre-existing unpaved roads and install sidewalks and curbs on both sides of the street of a surrounding subdivision.

We'd like to uh request to amend the DPM to provide that the requirement to pave pre-existing unpaved roads surrounding a subdivision is determined by a traffic impact analysis.

This is a document that can be used to basically show what's needed to make sure that traffic flow is appropriate around a subdivision.

In addition, amend the DPM to provide sidewalks and curbs outside a subdivision are only required to be installed in adjacent road if an adjacent road is required to be paved, and the developer of the subdivision is the owner of the adjacent lots.

This will eliminate any complaint or anybody saying they don't have access to their property that we have a paved road in curb and gutter in front of their property.

This has been a problem in for the city in the past.

Um and one wouldn't want to see additional complaints be filed to the city because of that access issue.

Um they'll state that the waiver component will have that, and we can submit for a waiver for these requirements, but I think it's a simple change that you won't need a waiver.

Let's just do a traffic impact analysis.

Let's show what's needed for a subdivision, and let's pave those roads that are needed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And Brian, just so I got that right.

You you were you were done, right?

Oh, okay.

All right.

I was trying to make sure I got everybody in the right order there.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

Do we have anybody else signed up to speak on this item?

No, sir, we do not.

Okay.

Um, and just for the record, what I know there's I was reading some confusion here on my agenda that uh the DPM is item number 12, but we're it was R122.

Um, so we just took comment for the record on R 122, the DPM, and then we're gonna take comment on O27 here in just a minute when we when we get through R 122.

Okay, for clarity on that.

Okay, uh, with that, I'm gonna take questions, comments from council.

Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Weimer.

Well, first I wanted to thank all the stakeholders for their involvement in this process.

It's been a hugely lengthy process and a very important one, as we all know.

Anyone that is in this business or has been a part of it recognizes the importance of this document to that end, and I know City Manager Geisel mentioned it to the staff team that worked so hard to the consultant that also put in the time and effort to get this to this point.

I I applaud your efforts.

Um looking at the list of stakeholder meetings and the number of times that this process has been gone through, it's been hashed out over and over and over again.

We're down to what appears to be maybe three or four issues.

I think we're pretty close.

If I look through some of the issues that remain, one of which was the 10-acre minimum master plan requirement.

I I think I'm okay with that.

I know that there are many in this room that would like to see larger or more acreage, but I don't know that I'm comfortable with going to 50 acres.

I I see the waiver process.

I see that as an option for taking individual characteristics of subdivisions and evaluating them on their merit.

So I think I'm okay with that given the fact also that that master plan is very watered down.

It is it is work that I believe is going to be done anyway, as a part of anybody's good due diligence for a project.

If you don't know the information that's in that very watered down basic master plan document, then you probably shouldn't be moving forward with the project anyway.

Looking forward then to the next item that was on the list, um, the ownership requirement.

So I know that there was discussion of 51% in the room, and I know that staff is recommending 90%.

And I know that staff is recommending 90%.

I'm not comfortable with 50%.

I would consider going or or proposing 85% for the reasons that staff brought up.

There are good examples of how 85% looks like it probably works.

90% works better, but I understand the concern about assembling that amount of acreage and finding those those individuals, owners that are a part of that development.

So I'd like to hear from my colleagues on their thoughts on that.

Parks, we had we heard a little bit about parks, and I don't disagree with the argument about HOA maintenance of parks.

However, I believe there are enough options that are listed, uh proximity to existing parks, ability to attach to another H HOA control community with a park.

So I think that staff made a good argument about that amenity being something that ought to be included in subdivisions.

So the only question I have that then that remains, and this is maybe for Director Rencone.

Um can you discuss a little bit about the roadway requirements that surround existing developments?

I know that at least it's been my experience in other municipalities, typically a road that abuts a development needs to be built.

And sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes, and and I can point to a couple of examples, it's a waste of money and the infrastructure just sits there and deteriorates and is never used.

Mr.

Mayor, Councillor Weimer, um, so yes, there's a lot of different examples where it's beneficial to have those roads and other examples uh where it's not.

Um so currently um there is um the process that the city goes through if a developer comes in um and they have a development agreement.

We have some negotiations on what roads are going to be paved during what time.

Um, and so uh I think one of the examples uh that Mr.

Liker mentioned was um Montezuma.

Um and when we um the development agreement for this one just came in a few years ago in conversations with it, some of the abutting roads were not paved because the you abut you pave what abuts your subdivision, and so we actually did some negotiations to increase um how far Montezuma was paved to uh I'm gonna get this wrong, but to Guinevere, if I remember correctly.

Um, and so then there was other uh sections of road that were not going to be paved because we felt that uh that section of Montezuma was going to actually be a larger, more system level improvement than than some of the other roads.

Um and and so we have those conversations, but not every subdivision is gonna have a development agreement.

Um, and so to be able to afford some options on how to not have to pave those roads, we we have that waiver requirement.

Um, but we want to make sure that we have those conversations on if we're not building, if not everything's being built around, um, then is there other system level improvements that are coming online?

Um is there drainage that is gonna be an issue if if curb and gutter is not put around the subdivision?

All those types of things, we want to be able to have those conversations, um, and we want a formalized process so that we're able to give the developers a a direction and a path on how to move forward uh and make it very easy versus trying to um trying to put it you know shoehorn in a development agreement when it doesn't need to happen or or build to standards that they don't feel are are um reasonable.

I hope that answered your question.

Yeah, that yeah, that did.

And and you you point to some examples of exactly why I wanted a little bit more clarification on that.

Um I you know, like I mentioned, I I think there's a development off of UNSER in Albuquerque that has four lanes of paved asphalt that's sitting there deteriorating and not being used.

But that was the ordinance.

So what I'm hearing from you is that there is some flexibility, that it depends on where access to the subdivision is being gotten, what other roads could benefit better than surrounding a community that isn't gonna the road goes nowhere.

So to the to that end, there was a lot of discussion tonight about the waiver process.

Can you go into that a little bit more detail?

It sounded like some of the speakers were concerned that while there may be a waiver process, rarely are waivers granted.

Those were not their words, that was kind of the suggestion that I heard.

So, Mr.

Mayor, uh Councilor Weimer.

We haven't had this before, so I I don't know what there would be an assumption that they're not gonna be approved.

Um what staff is trying to do with the waiver process is take out some of the um when we have subdivision variances, they have to go in front of the planning and zoning board.

There is a lot more.

I don't have a good word for it tonight.

There's there's there's a lot more options of that going sideways than um having a request in front of staff who are looking at the standards and who um have a little bit more of a knowledge of what's going forward.

Uh so we actually feel that the waiver process would be um a faster process.

It that waiver goes to the DPM committee, um, which will still include um outside uh agencies as well.

So um hopefully that helps give a little bit of checks and balances to make sure that things do get approved and that things move forward um and that we now have a more formalized process.

So so um these discussions don't get stuck in a limbo area.

That was my next question.

Is this a formalized process?

Does it exist or will it need to be created?

It will need to be created, it doesn't currently exist.

Uh the proposed DPM updates uh give some frameworks on how we would handle that process.

Okay, cool.

Thank you, Amy.

That's all I have for now, Mr.

Mayor.

Um Councilor Weimer, before we move on, did you have an amendment to offer?

Because I heard you mention 85%.

I kind of wanted to get the thoughts of the rest of the council on that on that suggestion.

I just want to I just heard that and wanted to make sure we had that consideration.

Okay, we have counselor Tyler online.

Counselor Tyler, you have the floor, sir.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you very much.

Um I just want I'm gonna keep my comments really quick.

Uh I know Councillor Weimer um mentioned the 85%.

I I mean I think staff's done a great job, and I I think that um, and I know that Amy's talked about uh the ability to make things right if they're not working.

So I feel good at leaving it at 90% right now.

I I mean I think that we've had over 24 meetings.

This has been going on for several years.

Um I think it's been vetted.

Uh, I think the process has I like where everything's at right now, and I I trust in the fact that Amy has given me confidence that we can make adjustments in the future.

The only comment that was made that kind of frustrates me a little bit um is the fact that staff would take retribution, and that's why other developers and staff weren't here.

I I don't know that that's be true.

And if it is, then um maybe we need to take a look at that.

But I I think staff has done a great job.

I don't think that they're um gonna take retribution on people for coming out and speaking up.

Uh that just frustrates the heck out of me, but so be it.

Uh, but I just would like to leave things the way they are, and I I like where they're at right now, and I think staff's done a great job, and I want to compliment everybody for the job they've done.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Mayor.

That's council.

She get she beat you.

Speech to the trial.

Counselor Debson.

Okay, um, I also want to uh commend everybody involved in this process, and um, and thank you for the information that you sent us.

But I have to say that if I had my way, it would I it would be a hundred percent ownership because I don't like the idea of having uh an island of nothing in the midst of a of a um subdivision or master plan, but I am willing to I'm also willing to consider the possibility of 85, but that's about as low as I can take it.

And as far as the the um parks, I live in a very dry desert.

Like subdivision did not have a park.

I the closest park to me, I live at the very edge of the city is Rainbow, and that's about three miles away from me.

So I understand the need and and the desire to have parks close by.

And so I think I I I want to keep that exactly the way it is.

I don't want to make any changes to that one.

I'm not gonna comment on roads.

Oh, sorry, thank you.

Thank Councilor Tilbridge.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh well, I'll I'll comment on roads.

Um, never um in my time on city council have I ever had a resident say I want a road built on dirt, um, or I want less sidewalks.

Um so if uh for whomever that proposal was made, um I think that indicates some intention or lack thereof when it comes to hearing the needs of the community, and I think that speaks maybe to the overall scope um of the way some of these counter proposals have been offered.

Um so I think that's that on road roads.

Our existing standards is what is helping us to take care of many of the issues that existed, pre-existed many of us.

And so we need to continue on that pathway, continuing on the pathway to ensure that the neighborhoods have appropriate curb and gutter, that they have sidewalks, and that the roads are built appropriately, is what will help to ensure that these roads start off on a good foot and that a future governing body won't have to deal with the issues that we are enduring right now.

So that's that on roads.

I'm always fascinated when I hear about the issue of antiquated platting.

I recognize that none of us here in this room were part of the antiquated plating, but there are representatives of organizations that were part of that.

And so it I find it always fascinating that that is a problem that was created.

And yet we're always the solutions are not always for the benefit of the city.

Amy, if you go back to slide 12.

It looks like the majority of the um developments since I think you said 2017, they're basically in compliance with both master plan and having HOAs.

Even smaller um communities still have HOAs, and many of them also had master plans.

Right.

So when I see that, it lets me know that at least to some extent the market is able to bear having HOAs and master plans are both good for you know the developing the community and the market has been able to bear that.

Am I reading that correctly?

Yes, that's uh Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Colbert.

Um, that is from the research that staff has been doing and just what we've seen application-wise, our understanding as well.

Okay, and then on slide 28, um, you show a list of um like kind of our building future, um, what's that coming through the pipeline?

Um, as you look at those um that are at their various stages of development, um do the majority of these comply with the future proposed DPM.

Um, do you have you looked at this?

I I'm assuming that if they've already been approved, they'll just be grandfathered in, but then anything that comes forward would have to go through the new DPM.

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Colbert, yes.

Um from our uh read of um the developments that for the preliminary plats um and final plots that we have been seeing, uh the majority of them, yes, would meet the standards that we currently um have put in place, uh are proposing to put in place.

Okay, so that and so that again shows that that this is what the market um is speaking to.

We're speaking to you know, a market that's looking for this workplay live balance.

We're seeing as we see the many master plans that come forward, their um vibrant plans that you know often have walking trails and parks, and we're looking for that is what the market is demanding.

Um, and and I also think that it's it's a good idea overall to have spaces for people to walk to get outside to be healthy, um, to have parks where they can enjoy, and to have sidewalks that they can walk on.

I have neighborhoods within uh my district that don't have sidewalks, and that's a major concern.

Um so it it appears that again that this is what our citizen survey is showing, and then the market based on what is coming forward even without these requirements, um many of the concerns that are listed, there it's it's already there, and so I I do question a little bit um why we would not continue to support these types of developments.

Um so thank you.

Um thank you for that.

Um I think the last thing that I'll just say, Mr.

Mayor, is um I also um I take some exception with um any I I think our our city staff has done a fantastic job uh with this going forward.

Um we as has been mentioned, Rio Rancho has contributed significantly to the growth, um the housing growth of the city.

Um and so our staff works closely with the the development community to be able to bring those things forward.

We've taken on our very fair share of the growth in our region, um, and so I I commend you for the hard work that you and your staff have done.

Um so with that, Mr.

And so with that, Mr.

Mayor, I I look forward to being able to support this document as it's been provided.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Councilor List.

I just want to say thank you again to the team.

You guys have done an excellent job.

Hundreds and hundreds of hours and lots and lots of wisdom and information has been put in this.

I think we need to remember the fact that you said 15 years ago was the last time this has been done.

So obviously there's going to be a lot of growing pains in this because we have evolved.

Our city has changed, our city has grown, the rules have changed, our idea of what life should look like has changed.

So anybody who's not on board with the evolution really needs to take a step back and think about that.

So I think it's super important that we remember also that our city, our role is for people, right?

And so while the developers, we very much appreciate you, we need to grow in this community.

We want there to be development, we want there to be employability opportunities.

The people are who live here.

The people are the heart of this community.

And the people are speaking very clearly about what they need and what they want.

And it is our role and our obligation to provide that for them.

And this is a roadmap to get there.

I think that I happen to represent a couple of significant communities that have that are a little older and they have subpar roads, they have no sidewalks.

People are constantly complaining about the speeding through those neighborhoods.

And I think that I'm not alone, but I'm thinking that how when we have an opportunity to put some parameters in place to help curb that behavior, um, to improve that behavior.

Nobody wants to buy a house so that every five minutes their roads are falling apart.

We as a city are right now trying to keep up with the history that was maybe not as proficient as it could have been.

So we're trying to keep up, we're trying to maintain why on earth would we not put something in place that's going to minimize those types of uh repercussions.

So I thank you so much for thinking about that.

I feel like the exemption or waiver process is such a safeguard for both developers and for the city because it allows for you to say, hey, this particular unique situation, we can do something different, and it allows for that to happen.

I also think that the fact that we're gonna review this in two years, why not look at, you know, in the past two years, we've had a dozen exemptions in this one particular area.

That's the area we need to go look at.

Like I think it provides a roadmap for us to do those types of things.

And last, the park thing.

Um, you know, we talk about this day and age and and mental well-being and mental health and all of the things, you know, green space uh provides psychological well-being.

So inconvenient, a little a few dollars here and there, it's about people, not profit, and we need to make the right decision for our people, and our people need to be healthier, and that is one of the things that's constantly being thrown at us.

So I think my counterparts have said a lot of things.

I think the developers have thrown a lot of important things out, but I think you guys have done a fabulous job.

I very much support this document.

Whether we have an amendment or not for uh ownership, uh I I can support either way, but I I'm not gonna in any way, shape, or form um go backwards on taking care of our people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have uh counselor Linantine online.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and uh just let me know if you can't hear me if I have a bad uh connection.

I apologize.

Um I also wanted to say I know that there's been a lot of hours that have gone into this.

This is not thrown together.

Every um part of this has been well thought through, and so I think the staff for that.

I think um, you know, people that have contributed from input and everything as well.

Um I agree with what a lot has been said, so I'm just gonna click through a couple things really quickly.

Um I appreciate Counselor Weimer going first.

Um I I think that 90% is fine.

90% ownership is fine because of the waiver process, and because I know that this staff will review the data, and when we go back and look at this again, if we need to amend, then we will do that at that time.

So I'm good with 90%.

Um, I also I grew up in this town, and I grew up in um in the district that Councilor Dabson now represents, and to get to a park, my brother and myself would hop on a bike and bike about 12 minutes to get to a park.

Um, the house we grew up in, there was no sidewalks on either side of the road on our street.

And when I became city council, I think all of us want uh better for our kids, maybe than what we had growing up.

I love that now I live and you know in this city in a planned community where I can walk with my family to three different parks in under 10 minutes walking.

And so it's it's a big deal to people to be able to have sidewalks and curbs and gutters.

I used to represent part of that area that's now through lines ring being redrawn in Councilor Dabson's district, and people would call all the time, like, hey, we don't have curves and guiders, how can we get those?

Or uh, how do we get sidewalks?

And it was frustrating because you almost have to just tell them, well, you might just you probably just need to move to somewhere else because after the infrastructure's in, we all know that it's almost impossible to go back and to get a group of people together, you know, to do some type of um you know uh pit or whatever to get uh that stuff put in after the fact.

And so I think that these standards are excellent.

We've wanted this for a long time.

We've talked about this for a long time.

Obviously, the city's worked on this for a long time to get to this point, and so I I love these proposals, um, and I think that we've needed them.

And um I don't want us to go forward with the 10-day um on staff approving for two reasons.

One, the staff has shown that they will get after it really quickly.

Uh but two, there might be a time in the future where maybe we can't hire staff to levels that we need to, and so I think it's important for us to be able to still hold our standards, and if we're not meeting those standards, then we need to have some staffing talks and fix that and not just put in a rule that would uh push things through if you know there was a a time clock, you know, that was started.

And so uh I just want to that's all I have to say.

I just want to uh thank everyone for coming out and for their comments.

We appreciate it.

I do think we've got a lot of a lot in the pipeline coming for your rancho.

I'm hoping that this will maybe nudge to where development is more adjacent to current development.

Sometimes in Rio Rancho, we've got I've got one of these in my district, it's just you know, 60 homes kind of plopped somewhere, there's not a lot around it, and that's difficult.

I get that we're a city that's infilling a lot, but I think adjacent development is um a better path forward than kind of just you know picking spots around the city, and so I'm hoping that this will help to bolster that and to give us uh good quality as we also have good quantity that's coming.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, so um to the flexibility or to the very to the um to the um waiver.

I think that what we've seen in the city over the last I don't know how many years really flexibility from the governing body.

So I want to speak to that real quickly because when we think about it, I did I did a little bit of research when I hear, oh, we're not getting granted variances or waivers and things aren't changing.

Since 2020, the governing body has approved 109 zone map applications.

Or we've had I'm sorry, we've had 109 zone map applications.

30 zoning ordinances that were adopted for increased single family residential density from R uh to R2, R3, R4, and uh R6.

Twelve ordinances that included zoning to multifamily from commercial, lowered in city residential, four overlap with single family residential, uh Stone Gate, Mountain Hawk, Chemisa Hills, and Los Diamantes, residential zone map amendments, Tierra del Oro zone map and master plan amendments, R6, R1 to R2, Hyde Park in 2022, zone map amendment and a master plan amendment from TZ to C1 and R6 to R4.

Zuma Ranch in 2022 zone map amendment uh and a master plan amendment from TZ uh C1, R1 to R4 and R5, High Range 5 and 6 from 2021 and 2023 zone map and master plan amendment from R1 to R4, and R1 to 01 and R5 uh uh and R5, Los Diamantes in 2023 zone map and master plan amendment from R1 to R2, uh R3 and R6, um not to mention in Los Diamantes, we converted uh what was supposed to be a commercial business park back to R4 and R6, Tampico, uh 20 uh Tampico from a zone zone map amendment and master plan from SU C1 to R4, um commercial to multifamily in at Ria Rancho in 2020 went from C1 to uh R6 or R3, which one was that?

Uh is that R6?

R6, but yeah, S U4R6.

SU for R6, Enchanted Hills, 550, uh SU commercial to uh industrial to R6, Cabazon built uh the uh Cavazon builder rent from C1 to SU Planned Residential Development, Corralis South, Metal Art 2022 from C2 to R6, Inca Apartments 2023, SU, commercial SU to multi-family, Stone Gate Track 3, 2025, R3 to SU NC, R3, R6, and I'm gonna say probably 90, um, Mr.

Inca Apartments 2023, SU, commercial SU to multifamily, Stone Gate Tract 3, 2025, R3 to SU NC, R3, R6.

And I'm gonna say probably 90, Mr.

Geisel, I'm gonna ask you, probably 90 to 95% of those had staff recommendations for approval.

So I think there's been flexibility.

My point on this is when we talk about we're oh the staff's gonna turn down waivers well I've got a whole slew of of examples of where the city has come out really business friendly.

When we made a decision one way I've seen us within a year go back and change it and go, you know, Los Diumontes we have Pierre here, thank you for your investment in our community and your commitment to quality but you know we had that we had that business park and while it gave us a little bit of heartburn to convert it from what we thought it was going to be back to residential the governing body embraced that and so did staff and we worked through it and we got it done and it wasn't ultimately that painful but I think there's been flexibility.

That's what I'm saying here.

So when we say oh waivers aren't going to get approved I do want to say one thing because it is a very very important allegation to say that staff's taking retribution of these people.

If that's happening I want documented proof of okay because I've seen this staff bend over backwards spend hours and hours and hours to try to help accommodate different things I've gotten phone call after phone call after phone call over the years where from people that said you know I had this problem I couldn't figure it out I met with Amy I met with staff I met with this person I met with that person they walked us through it they helped us get through it and I've received just numerous compliments about staff now are they perfect?

No but I'm gonna say that through ups and downs with the employment issues and the staffing issues and people leaving and being short on inspectors they are breaking their backs down here to try to get these plans out and try to be as responsive as they possibly can is it perfect no and do they have a solution to everything?

No.

So really what I'm I'm speaking to is more of I think the spirit of what you see going on here in City Hall and trying to bring these developments forward and I think the results of that is we've seen the incredible influx of development in this city over the last 10 years where we've brought housing back online.

I remember in 2014 we had foreclosures all over the city and abandoned master plans and abandoned areas where it had been plowed off the housing market threw all that into a tailspin and it's the staff that we have right now that's tried to bring all that back online and try to really usher that in and the fact that we've got 40 40 plus percent of the uh of the new home starts in this in the Santa Fe Albuquerque market uh when you take that total market people are flocking to rear rancho for a reason and those reasons are is they're seeing quality developments they're seeing uh the the houses that they want to live in the schools they want to live in and they're seeing some of the at least the new neighborhoods that are filling up like uh Cleveland Heights and some of the new neighborhoods that have come online since since I've been in office the the the sidewalks and the streets and the standards that are being that are being built to today are extremely important to them I talked to a few I talked to about 10 people that I know in Vista Hills and I said you know if you could go back and have sidewalks would you do that?

Yeah I would like sidewalks because they're very they're very concerned now with the speeding that goes up say Pyrite now that that road's brand new and it's just it's it's slick as lightning right and it's downhill you've got a lot of people just speed right down that to get down to Rockaway and people are very scared to walk in the streets to get to the mailbox so this isn't an uncommon thing but then if you go to Cavazan and you talk to 10 different people over there they think walkability is great.

Why because there's trails and sidewalks and crosswalks and crossing lights and things that we don't have in some of the neighborhoods that didn't have those things right so I mean we are listening to the developers and we're listening to the citizens because ultimately we want to try to be flexible with the developers and the builders because you guys are investing your money and you're trying to provide the housing but at the same point in time when I just go through this list over the last four and a half five years of zone map amendments and zoning changes and master plan changes it shows and with 90 probably 95% of that staff recommending that I I see flexibility there.

I see that we're here to work.

We're not here to find this rigid document that's going to be stuck with till you know to the end of time.

And we've got a waiver process built in.

I'd like to see how that works.

I'd like to test that and make sure and see how that's working and see how staff pulls all that together.

Um I have the same concerns about a 51% ownership.

I just want to put it out there so I don't so I can address that.

Yes, when we talk about master planning in area, uh there are overall master plans, and then there's when somebody brings forward a development says, I'm gonna build houses here and I'm gonna build houses around these vacant lots.

That concerns me because if you change the zoning for the surrounding homes, and then you've got that house that's left in the center, um, and it's not master planned, then I could build a $300,000 house.

I buy a $300, $400,000 house, whatever the average median house is right now, through I think it's $360.

And if that's still R1 or TZ and it's not part of the master plan, and um it's not been zoned differently.

Um somebody could come and put a mobile home right across the street from my in this development, right in the middle of it.

Um and that concerns me.

Um, and then also people that will buy these houses and not go and explore, and trust me, I know that we've we've dealt with it right here when we when we're trying to approve a commercial property.

People say, Well, I didn't know what that commercial pro I didn't know that was commercial, I thought that was just open space.

People should do their due diligence, but they don't.

And so, you know, for example, there's been numerous conversations about the the commercial property that it's well that we I should air quote open space, but it's commercial property at the corner of West Side and Uncer, um, right there backing up to Cavazan as to what should or shouldn't go on that corner.

Um it's set there vacant for so long, it's been referred to as open space, it's not open space, it's C1, it's commercial property.

And we've looked very heavily at uh how we're gonna develop that.

And I think that's one of the few properties I can think back on that uh uh we didn't approve a zone change on that one to take it to R 3 or R6, I think.

So that was probably one of the very few.

But that being said, I I want to point to the flexibility.

The the city council and our staff has been absolutely rigid on this stuff.

I think we've been very flexible, and I've said it time and time again, I I shudder a little bit when we convert commercial to residential because we're running out of commercial in this city, and right now I've got I think a less than three percent vacancy on commercial buildings in the city, and nobody's building commercial buildings, which blows my mind because you'd think with a 46,000 homes, 12% increase, median income in the 80s, uh median home value in the three in the in the mid-threes, if not higher.

Um, you'd think that you'd see a lot more commercial development, but we're seeing a lot of requests to convert that commercial to residential because this is where people are flocking.

That's because they feel safe, they got great schools, um, and then the new developments that we're seeing come forward throughout the throughout the uh the city uh people are flocking to those right now.

And so, and and and I appreciate all the developers here, and I appreciate the developers in the room because y'all are investing your money.

You are building here, you're providing those opportunities for people.

So that's not gone unnoticed.

I absolutely respect everything you guys do.

I respect you know your development in like I said, it takes a lot to step out.

And you know, for example, Pierre, it takes a lot to go move, you know, dirt on 65, 75, 100, 150 acres, and take the risk of am I gonna be able to sell these lots after I put all the roads in, after I put all the sidewalks in, after put all the infrastructure, uh, is the market gonna sustain this and am I gonna be able to sell the lot?

It's there's risk.

There's absolute risk.

We appreciate you taking that risk, but we also appreciate the quality developments that we see coming forward that are really getting people to come to Rear Rancho, and that's why Rear Rancho has been recognized more than 20 times over the last 10 years as a best place to live, a safest community, a desirable community, an affordable community, um, high levels of public safety, uh, you know, so all of those things add up.

And uh and if and we wouldn't have any of that if we didn't have these standards that uh we've lived with for the last 15 years, and now we're trying to do this.

And I've seen I see some stuff in here as I've been reading through this and following the changes, trying to complete create more flexibility in some areas, and um trying to create more defined standards in other areas, and as we continue to evolve as a community, um we've got to continue to review these documents, and um I'm very much in favor of a two-year review so that we can come back, and I'm very much in favor of taking in the comments as these things come forward as we sp as we go through these processes.

Um I I have my concerns with some things, and then I have concerns with others.

No document is going to come forward that's this massive is gonna please everybody a hundred percent.

It's just not gonna do it.

Um so uh we have but we have to move forward and make sure that we're we're planning and and doing the things appropriately.

So with that, I'm gonna say thank you to staff and thank you to the developers and the builders and all of the city, all of the uh uh the I see the HBAs online, NAOP, all of the individuals that all came together to really put input into this document.

There's there are thousands of hours when you take everybody's uh everybody that's involved been involved in this.

I want to acknowledge everybody that came to the table and worked so hard to to try to help craft this document city staff.

Uh this has been a heavy lift for city staff while they've had to do all the other things that they've done.

Um and uh you guys have had uh this this past year and a half, two years has been a heavy lift for you guys, and you've been working hard.

Impact fees, you know, this, and then trying to approve master plans, trying to approve zone map amendments, taking all the applications in.

So um, and with the limited resources that you have, I think you've done uh an amazing job, and I personally appreciate it because I've seen the stress, I've seen you guys working so hard to try to figure out the best process forward that balances the developer interest, the home builder interest, and the citizens' interest, because ultimately after the developers develop and the builders build, we have a lifelong relationship with those citizens afterward.

They live here uh as long as they live here, and so that house becomes a lifelong relationship, whoever's living in it.

So uh, and so we've got to balance all that.

So I guess my comments just circle back to um thank you all very much for all the hard work.

Developers and everybody staff, thank you guys, and Matt, if you had hair before this, you wouldn't have had hair after this.

And I have to say I'm it's been many years that Peter Wells still has his hair.

It's been many many, many, many years.

Yeah.

So anyway, but thank you guys.

Uh any other comments by council?

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilor Weimer.

I would like to propose an amendment to the ownership requirement for master plan developments from 90 acres as proposed to 85 acres.

So you mean percent?

I'm sorry, percent.

I apologize.

Yes, percent.

Do I have a second on that?

I'll go ahead and second it for discussion.

Any discussion on that item?

Hearing none, Ms.

Davis on the amendment, please.

Thank you.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Councilor Tyler.

No.

Councillor Dabson?

No.

Councillor Lennon Time.

No.

Councillor Weimer?

Yes.

Councillor Colbright.

No.

The amendment fails.

Okay.

Going back to the main amendment, uh, the main motion on the DPM.

I'll take the roll call on the DPM on item R 122.

Councillor Colbreth?

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor Lenantine.

Yes.

Councilor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

And Counselor List.

Yes.

R20, R 122 is approved.

Okay, moving on to O27, ordinance of the City of Rear Rancho New Mexico amending the Rio Rancho Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155 subdivision.

Amy, you've already presented on this, but I am going to go ahead and take uh public comment, but it has to be restricted to 155.

The DPM item is moved on.

So but I want to make sure that there's an opportunity to speak to this if possible.

Kerry Plant.

You're good?

Okay.

Um Jared.

Name and address.

Yeah, thank you.

Well, yeah, thanks.

Jared Liker, uh, 409 New Mexico Highway 528 Rio Ranch, New Mexico.

Uh general question because of how it was brought to you, and I saw Miss Reen Cohn's text in her presentation.

The original did not have two and a half miles to a public park, it just said to a park.

Her presentation said to a public park.

So does that need to be officially amended in the language?

Because I'm assuming it came from P and Z with just two and a half mile walk to a park as opposed to a public park.

Don't want to be able to build private parks, and then someone builds next to me and gets the benefit of that park, should be in my opinion, to a public park.

Okay, thank you.

And by the way, I was just reminded, yes, because uh we already had the um the the uh presentation.

I do need a motion and a second before we move on, but you're good, thank you.

Motion to approve 027, please.

Move to approve 027.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Okay.

Um let's see, Amy, you want to go ahead and address that.

So uh Mr.

Mayor, this is uh the first reading of the chapter 155.

So um if there is any proposed edits, we can make those edits um before the second reading, um, and then we will uh present any of those um changes.

Um so when it comes to public park, uh we had um had some internal discussions that uh we thought that it would be okay just to leave it as park.

Um so uh just in case if there was any work uh in between multiple HOAs that they would have to if they had an agreement outside of the city still have to come back to PCB for a subdivision variance if we put public park in there.

So we we actually thought we'd be adding in additional steps.

Uh but we're open to that uh to add in the the word public um and we would make that at it before the second reading if that's the desire.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the government, Amy, could you go back?

I think it's one or two slides before when you talk about the alternatives to the HOA.

And I think at the core issue too, Mr.

Mayor, if I may, is Amy Um presents this.

Staff's going to assess whether the development complies with this requirement.

And if the if developer A is trying to comply by piggybacking on developer B's HOA park, staff's gonna the analysis can say that does not comply, it does not conform.

As it's referenced here, and I have my reading glasses on, so I can't see exactly what it says.

But if you're picking backing off of another HOA's park, we are going to look for explicit written consent of that um of that other HOA.

Um, you know, there is you know, there are scenarios where maybe developers building three, four communities, but they're unique, but they may have a master HOA.

So it is something we're gonna be looking for at a at a staff level.

Um, but you know, to Amy's point, it's one of the reasons why we built this slide.

Um, and uh, you know, the you know to Amy's point is it we want to create some flexibility and other ways to achieve it, but we don't want to engender or support a free rider or a freeloader at the same time.

Okay, thank you.

Um let's see.

Uh Mr.

Spengler.

Okay, thank you.

And Mr.

Aragon.

Okay, thank you.

Any comments by council on one on O27.

Hearing none, Miss Davis 027, please.

Thank you, sir.

Councillor Weimer.

Yes, Councillor Lennon Time.

Yes, Councillor List.

Yes, Councillor Dabson.

Yes, Councilor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Callbreath, yes.

Thank you.

Right, that concludes our regularly scheduled agenda.

Uh Mr.

City Manager, do you have a report for us tonight?

Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

Um actually I don't have much of a report.

Um, but there's something about retiring directors ducking and dodging council meetings.

Um Chief De Filippo retired the day before a council meeting.

Um and uh Carol managed to escape this evening.

Um so I think there was a reason why she asked um you did say you're gonna you were gonna roast her a little bit, so I think that's probably why she asked to have the her item move to the front and uh is getting close to retirement.

So moved her to the back.

Um, in all seriousness, uh this was uh uh director Jaramillo's last uh city council meeting with her last day being the end of this month.

So um sometimes it's a little cliche when we say it, but very heartfelt uh thanks and gratitude for her service uh to the city, and I've learned immensely from her, even if she causes my bald head to be bald or sometimes.

Um she's a wonderful public servant, and I think models of the way for a lot of folks on what it means to be a dedicated public servant and to put the community interest first, um, above you know, above what uh above everything else, and be an absolute steward um of the public's money.

Um is very helpful in allowing us to have the budget we have, um, to generate the revenues we have, but also have a tax structure that is less than a lot of other communities, or tax rates that are lower than a lot of other communities.

So with that, um I think that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will say just beyond the record, since she's not here, I just am so grateful for Carol and uh her leadership and her team over the years that has uh led the city through some of its cleanest audits in in the city's history under her leadership.

And um it's it's it's uh she's gonna be missed, no doubt, no doubt.

And uh we certainly appreciate everything she did.

And so she's not gonna get away completely without uh a few kudos.

Um but uh Carol has been amazing to work with, and we appreciate her service to the citizen to the city and the citizens of Rio Rancho.

She has been the ultimate good steward of taxpayer resources, and so we certainly appreciate her.

And I want to just make sure that even though she dodged this one, um, she's gonna have to go back and play the video and hear me tell her how much I appreciate her and all of her great hard work over the last many years that we've worked together.

She will be missed.

Okay.

With that, thank you.

We are adjourned.