Meaning 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.

Councillor Dabson.

Present.

Thank you.

Counselor Lindon Time.

Present.

Thank you.

Counselor Tyler.

Is he excused?

Present.

Oh, he's online.

Okay, good.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were there.

Counselor Tyler is with us online.

Counselor Weimer.

Present.

Thank you.

Counselor Colbreth.

Present.

Thank you, Councillor List.

Present.

Thank you.

All right.

Before we get started, I need to offer an amendment to the agenda.

We have a correction on item number six D3.

We need to amend the approval for Turtle Mountain Brewing LLC, the applicant located at 7835 enchanted Hills Boulevard Northeast Suite in 105 Rio Rancho 87104 for a small brewer off site application.

We need to change small brewer off site to limited beer wholesale license.

Okay.

So if there are no objections to that amendment to the agenda.

All right.

Hearing no objections, that amendment is made.

And so no proclamations or awards of merit today.

Moving on to public forum.

Each comment will be limited to two minutes.

So moving on.

Mr.

Van Horn.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, counselors.

Congratulations to the winners of your election.

I uh presented to you this uh flyer that uh I came across while I was in Santa Fe that I thought you all would be very interested in.

This is from the Mexico Tech.

Um it's their water division, and the thing I would ask you to pay attention to on the front page, the picture is very interesting.

Shows well, it shows wells, it shows water being uh sinking into the ground to refresh the aquifer.

There's also on the far right side of that picture, it shows an injection well.

There's information in this flyer about injection and about wells, and the main topic of this is how we are monitoring in New Mexico our groundwater, the water that we pump.

And there is uh a very interesting paragraph on page five.

It says uh the next to the last paragraph, New Mexico is facing water challenges as it moves into the future with decreasing supplies, even as agriculture and industrial demands remain the same or increase.

So I just wanted bring to your attention that water in New Mexico is not talked about enough.

We actually are in a crisis.

This uh also I gave you this.

It's a pretty good synopsis of the compact and where we are in that agreement.

The reason I'm before you is because you are the de facto public infrastructure advisory board or utilities commission, and since the public advisory uh uh board does not meet, I think that it's important for you all to find out to to please read this because this is an issue that you all need to be aware of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else sign up for comment?

Any comments by council.

Okay, let me just Mr.

Van Horn.

I I I absolutely appreciate what you're saying.

Um, but you have publicly stated you oppose aquifer injection.

You don't think it's worth it.

And we are the first city in the state to actually invest in it.

And I appreciate this.

And as a matter of fact, when I looked at this article, I have done something I don't know that you have.

Is I've actually set sat and talked with Dr.

McFadden.

I've actually met with him.

Um water is something I've invested myself in heavily because return flow credits and all this other stuff.

Subsidence, there's right here.

Very few people know what subsidence means.

That means the ground collapses and closes in a drought when we don't recharge it, and that area is closed.

So we no longer allow we no longer have the ability to hold that space open to store that water naturally.

So when that space closes, the geology that comes from the Santa Fe aquifer basins and the group aquifers that run through the through this side of the state, along with what they're this suffering the crisis that they're having right now with the Ogallala aquifer, which is in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico.

They're experiencing subsidence.

So when we do get water, that aquifer doesn't recharge, and there's nowhere to put the water, so it just runs on down to Texas or it runs on down to the Gulf of Mexico.

So we lose it.

So your point is very well taken.

I mean, if you ever want to sit and have a conversation about aquifers, we mapped our aquifer not too long ago, and those maps, I think uh, Mr.

City Manager, aren't those maps in the in the Loma Colorado library?

Mr.

Mayor, members of the government body, I believe somebody I'd need to verify.

Yeah, so they're really impressive uh geological maps uh in Yao using satellites, using mapping, the deep well aquifers that are out there that have high arsenic content that are way down deep.

Uh they don't know if those are closed cell.

We can't map those with satellites uh because they're so deep.

We don't know if those are closed or open cell.

If we drain them, are we able to refill them?

Do they replenish themselves?

Um in a drought, you're absolutely right.

We got to keep this commodity.

And we used to look at wastewater as a byproduct or something dispose of.

We took threw it out on the ground and we leached it and we evaporated it.

Now we can't do that anymore.

We have to use every technology possible to keep those drops of water here because what you may not know in the new compacts that are happening, uh, the new compacts with Texas, uh, the ones that are about to get approved are going to require uh pumping below the dam, below Elephant Butte, agricultural pumping, groundwater pumping is gonna have to be reduced by 18,400 cubic feet per year under the new contracts.

This is gonna have a huge impact on our agriculture throughout the state.

So, yes, it's a precious resource, so everybody north of the dam needs to be the best neighbor they can and preserve that water as best they can, whether that's through putting it back in the river, which you're very well of what return flow requirements are.

You've been there, you've understood that.

I've heard you debate over different items as a former commissioner.

And we have an obligation to return to the river.

33% of everything we pump.

We're very well aware.

We don't sit up here and go, I've never heard of this stuff before.

That's not what we do.

What we do is we study this stuff very intently because the future of our city depends on it, the future of our state depends on it.

And so I appreciate this article.

It's a great article, but it only reaffirms what we're doing here in Rio Rancho is we're being we're being good stewards.

We're protecting the aquifer through aquifer recharge.

And despite graphics that have been put online that we're dumping sewage waste into our aquifer, that's disingenuous and it's fear-mongering.

We're not dumping sewage into our aquifer.

If anybody studies out the entire process, you will know that it was there.

And by the way, while you were a county commission, while you were a sitting commissioner, this this utility the utilities commission voted several times to approve that aquifer injection system.

Okay.

So one minute you're saying you don't like aquifer injection and we're dumping raw sewage into the aquifer.

The next minute you're saying here handed me an article that says we should be doing it.

So this governing body has taken the responsible steps of investing heavily in this, and we've led the state, and we've been recognized for leading the state in this.

So thank you for this article because uh I don't even have to read it to know everything that's in here because I've met with Dr.

McFadden personally and I've met with water rights experts across the state that want to understand what Rio Ranch is doing and they want to see it happening in other communities across the state as well.

So thank you for this information.

Any other comments by council hearing none?

Moving on.

Consent calendar.

Um let's see here.

Now agenda item 01.

I'm assuming that's consent calendar.

Did you have something you wanted to speak to on the consent calendar, or was it the first item on the agenda?

Did you want to speak on the minutes?

Mr.

Van Horn.

Yes.

You signed up for item agenda item 01, which oh, okay, it says 01 here, so I wasn't sure if that was the agenda item if you wanted to speak on the minutes.

So it's it's item 10.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, it is 01 and it is item 10.

I apologize.

Okay, great.

I will take a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Move to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Uh Ms.

Davis, if you call the roll.

Thank you, sir.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Colbreth?

Yes.

Counselor List?

Yes.

Counselor Linentine.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

And Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

The consent calendar is approved.

Thank you for that.

Moving on to public hearings.

Item five D2, approval of for Turtle Mountain Brewing Company, LLC.

The applicant located at 990536 Place Southeast Rear Rancho.

A small brewer off site application.

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

No, sir, we do not.

Okay.

And would you like to present on this for us, please?

Sure, thank you.

So tonight I have two separate liquor license applications for your approval.

The first is item D2, and it is for a small brewer off-site liquor license, which will be located at 905 36th place street.

I think that's a typo.

On my part.

No, that's correct.

The regulation and licensing department has granted a preliminary approval and has sent the application to the governing body for a local governing body approval upon a governing upon governing body approval.

The application will be sent to the regulation and licensing the department for final approval.

Thank you.

Nico.

Do you have anything?

Okay.

Perfect.

No, thank you.

Just wanted to acknowledge that you're here.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve D2.

Motion to approve D two.

Mr.

Mr.

Mayor.

Second.

Thank you.

I have a motion and second.

Um Counselor Tyler, did you have something?

Oh, I was just seconding.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Counselor.

Before we move, I just want to clarify when you made the amendment earlier.

We're not doing a small brewer offsite application.

Not on this one, just on the other one.

Okay, thank you.

This one is correct.

The other one uh needed to say um limited beer and uh limited beer wholesale license.

Anything further from council?

I have a motion and a second.

Miss Davis.

D two.

Thank you.

Counselor Lennantine.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

And Counselor Colbreth.

Yes.

D two is approved.

Moving on to D3 is amended.

Uh approval of Turtle Mount Brewing Company LLC located at 7835 in Shannon Hills Boulevard.

Northeast in 105 rear ranch of New Mexico 87114 for a limited beer wholesale license application number BLA 14597.

I'll uh Miss Davis.

Thank you, sir.

So this is their second item for this evening, and it is Turtle Mountain.

They are seeking the limited beer wholesaler liquor license located at 7835 Enchanted Hills Boulevard.

And the regulation and licensing department has again pres provided in a preliminary approval, but we need our local jurisdiction approval.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve D3.

Mr.

Mara, I'll make a motion to approve D3.

I'll second it.

Okay, I got Counselor Tyler's motion.

Counselor Dabson seconds.

Any comments?

Hearing none.

Ms.

Davis, D three, please.

Thank you.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Colbreth.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Dabson?

Yes.

And Counselor Lennon Tyne.

Yes.

Thank you.

D three is approved.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to D4, site plan approval for an RV storage at the property legally described as Rear Rancho West Business Park Block A lot 5A1A.

Director Rincom.

Thank you, Nico.

Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor.

Members of the governing body, Amy Rincone, Directory of Development Services.

So the item for you tonight is a site plan for RV storage off of 4900 Rockaway Boulevard.

And so this is a location that previously had a site plan come in front of this governing body for approval.

It has since expired.

They've come back in with a little bit of reconfiguration and a little bit of a different office building itself.

Staff has reviewed this.

It does meet all of the standards of the SU.

And uh we recommend approval and I will stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Um I'll take a motion to approve D3.

I'm sorry, D four.

Motion to approve D4.

Second.

Thank you.

I have a motion and a second.

Uh do we have anybody signed up to speak on this?

No, sir, we do not.

Okay.

Is the applicant with us?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Not that we need anything just yet, but just in case there were any questions, thank you so much.

All right.

Hearing none before, Miss Davis.

Thank you.

Councilor Dapson.

Yeah.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Lynn Time.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor Colbritt.

Yes.

And Counselor List.

Yes.

D4 is approved.

Thank you.

R 18 resolution adopting the Vista Allegra Master Plan.

Director Rincone.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

So this item, I'm going to be actually presenting number um eight and nine together.

So R 18 is the resolution adopting the Vista Allegra Allegria master plan.

And then O4.

Yeah.

Is uh is the ordinance along with it to change the zoning from a combination of R1 to R6, R3, and R4.

And so the location is going to be north of Sandia and Rainbow Boulevard.

And so what you can see here is there is currently the there's a lot of lots that we're talking about.

So the map is really helpful today in showing that the stuff that's in purple is currently what is zoned M1.

And so most of that is going to be going to R6.

A couple a little bit of that's also going to be going to some lower density residential.

Then there is R1, that's going to be a combination of that R3 and R4.

So there is a full master plan in your agenda briefing memorandum.

So I just pulled out a couple of pages to talk through briefly along with the zoning.

So this illustration on the right hand side gives a better description of what the zoning is being proposed to change to.

So in that left hand corner is that big solid block of brown.

That would be what would be going to the multifamily residential.

Then you have that kind of like olive color.

And so that's more of the R4, and then the tan is going to be the R3.

One thing I do want to point out on this is that the gray lots that are in the center are not part of the master plan, and neither are the lots that are in white.

So the only things in the master plan itself, which is 100% ownership, is going to be the items in the brown, olive and tan color.

And so the master plan does have 100% ownership because of what they are presenting to be part of the master plan, but again, there are lots that they have chosen not to include because it is not under their ownership.

And so and I just wanted to add to this too.

So they could have included some of these out parcels.

The applicant chose at this time not to include those.

So a couple of other illustrations that I just wanted to point out from the pages on the left hand side, we do have the proposed layout.

On the right hand side would be what they're proposing for the internal paving.

One of the things that I want to point out when we talk about paving around subdivisions, there is a requirement in the DPM that uh the abutting roadways to subdivisions are also paved.

Um what can happen in the future though is when the applicant comes in for a preliminary plat, if they decide that or if they request to not uh pave third um or portions of sandia, uh they can put in a DPM waiver with that request and work with the city on review and access points, emergency access, all of those types of things so that we ensure that it's a fully functional subdivision, even if some of the roads on the outside may not get paved in the long term.

Uh one other thing I wanted to point out is there is on the document itself.

We try uh really hard to work with the applicants to get all of the little typos and things cleaned up before we get it in front of you.

Um we did notice that there was a a couple little things.

Um the right hand um illustration that I have in front of you, that little inset box with the the graphic for the legend.

Uh just some things got like bumped together kind of funny, and so they don't line up perfectly.

Um we did make the applicant aware of that and they will be updating all of those illustrations to have the correct legend and any other typos if we come across anything else between now and um when they get that final document to us, uh they'll also uh work on cleaning those up.

So uh both of these items were were heard in front of the planning and zoning board um at their meeting on February 10th, where it was recommended unanimously uh for approval.

Um and so I have up on the screen uh the conditions and binding the fact for R 18 and 04, and I will stand for any questions.

I do also want to mention that the applicant and agent are available if there are any questions.

Thank you.

So just as a reminder, when I take a motion on R18, we're gonna take all comments and uh input on R 18 and move right into 04.

So this is commentary commentary and input on both of these items.

So um I'll take a motion to approve R 18.

I move to approve of R 18.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Uh do we have anybody signed up to speak on this item?

Sir, we do have the agent available.

Should there be questions?

Okay.

Any comments by council?

Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilor Weimer.

I'm sorry, are you are you at the age?

Okay.

We're standing for any additional questions.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Weimer.

Uh Director Rincon question on, I think it was last meeting we heard from or uh from you on a it was the rainbow boulevard quarter overlay zone where we required additional setbacks from rainbow.

Is that is this site impacted by that?

So uh Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Weimer, not really uh because they don't actually own most of the lots that front on rainbow.

So there's only when we look at the map um on that bottom corner of uh Rainbow and Sandia, a couple of lots.

Um so those ones would be impacted, um, but most of their eastern border um does not actually uh abut that road.

Perfect.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, yes, counselor.

Thank you.

Um okay, so Amy, I have some questions.

Um I so if I'm I'm understanding so there's a hundred percent of ownership of what's included in the master plan, but we're taking the leap that the gray um lots are not included because they're not owned in the master plan, right?

Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Colbert, that is correct.

Um, and so those uh property owners in the gray uh were notified and they have different ownership from the ownership group that is part of the master plan.

Okay.

Um so if we were to um and so part of our DPM is that we're looking for 90% ownership um for master plans.

Um so if we were to include those lots, do you have a sense of what that ownership would be if those lots were included in them?

Master, but let's call that the area of the master plan.

Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Colbert, um, I believe that if we included just uh the parcels that are on this map in gray, I think they they would have been within that 90% frame.

If they had expanded out to include everything in the boundaries that were those uh parcels in white between um third and rainbow and sandia north, um they they would have been outside of that range.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for because that was going to be my next question.

Um so I think this is um so for the applicant, um is an interesting we shaped master plan.

Um I think it's less on the master plan for the area.

Um because I think I think it's a it's a stretch to say that this oddly shaped master plan um meets the goals of what we're trying to outline in the DPM, and part of that is to make sure that we have contiguous ownership that we're getting very well planned communities um and also recognizing that sometimes that will take time um to get the ownership to have a very good planned community.

Um it's unclear to me uh what would happen then if something is built on lot 21, for instance, um, and with the abutting cul de sacs, because then somebody could build something there.

Um and so like how do you envision that lot 21 or three or 20 or any of those kind of fitting with the vision of the community, or are you still pursuing uh those lots actively?

That would be for the applicant.

For the applicant, uh thank you, uh Councilmember Calbreath.

I apologize, excuse me.

Councilmember Culbreath, we were absolutely pursuing additional purchasing of those lots.

We actually have very good faith that time we get to construction, the remaining three or four parcels, the ones that you're talking about, 21, will be filled in, will get purchased.

We'll be able to have a continuous access and be able to further implement the design.

Okay, or six at least.

At least.

Are we definitely working on the 10?

We're definitely working on four on the very priority moving forward, and we'll slap to be working toward the ones that are internal first, and we will be working on the ones on the exterior later.

But definitely we plan to fulfill those needs.

Excellent.

Okay.

I think my other question, so Amy, I'm sorry, just I'm gonna have I have a clarifying question for you, and then I'll have a follow-up question for the applicant.

So you mentioned about the paving of the roadway.

Could you just speak to that a little bit more?

Because that was also part of that DPM process that when there's abutting roads that are unpaved, then part of that goal for the developer is to pave those roads, correct?

Mr.

Mayor, Council Culprit, that's correct.

So that's um it's actually not a new standard.

Um that is the standard that we have had in the DPM previously.

Um, and so I bring it up because uh there is a um uh they included in the master plan a copy of um uh a paving plan.

Um, but I just wanted to to point out the fact that um there are requirements in the DPM that require additional paving uh to happen for those abutting roads.

One of the things I also want to point out is that we are also um understand is at the as the city that it doesn't always make sense to pave all the abutting roads, and we try to work with those developers at the time of preliminary plan to find out the best way um to move forward with whether or not all of the roads need to be paved, um, if there is some way to have a uh portion their portion of the road payment actually come into the city so that we can use it for other infrastructure, or if they can um as a developer, if they wanted to put their money towards a system level improvement for impact fee credits, there's a lot of options that we can have, um, but there is that standard in place, and we want to make sure because now we do have a DPM waiver that uh we make sure that we go through that DPM waiver process to that standard for the roadways being paved, and I just wanted to point that out.

Okay, and then so for the applicant, so your intention for Third Street, it looks like um is not to pave that road.

Is that am I am I viewing that correctly?

So third street is or is it currently paved?

I'm sorry.

One second.

If I may, Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Colbert, Brian Ottawa with Amrap Southwest.

Um the intent is not to pave Third Street at this point in time.

Uh it is currently unpaved.

Uh we do not have intent to prove that.

But what we intend to do is we intend to develop a traffic study as we go through the preliminary plat process to help us determine the needs of those roadways adjacent to the development.

As we develop as we go through that, we will work closely with development services to answer any questions and make sure that we're uh in agreement with development services engineering department to get those needs accomplished.

Okay, and then and then also then it appears that your intent is to pave a couple feet on First Avenue and not anything else on First Avenue because you haven't acquired the rest of those properties on First Avenue.

That is correct.

What we do want to do is we want to be able to provide an access location on First Avenue into the first subdivision, which would be to the north of First Avenue with our first phase of development.

So I thank you very much.

So I think you know the big portion of this DPM is to make sure that we are setting standards for developers to follow to have very good development.

And you know, I get concerned that we continue to have you know development that's not meeting the needs of our community because never have I ever heard somebody say, Man, I wish my road wasn't paved.

Um and so when we have developers that come in and um, you know, I like to see good development, but with the emphasis on on good development, thoughtful development, forward thinking development, that if this community does develop out at even as you propose with the parcels, we can imagine that these parcels maybe they don't even get acquired.

Um, members of this community may not only be going out onto rainbow, they might be driving along First Street.

Um, and so I think it's um it's a little bit challenging for me, and in some ways it gives incentives for developers to not purchase properties um that abut roads because then you have an out to not pave them and still meet the standard, or you have an out by you know, not including parcels in the middle of your master plan and showing 100% ownership.

So some of this is feels a little bit like moving and skirting around the DPM to meet your development needs, but not always thinking about the community needs.

Um so I have some concerns with this plan as it's presented.

Um, and so you know, I don't know, we'll see how um you know how it develops out if it does go forward, but I really do want like thought going into what's going to be best for the community and not just what's going to be best for the developer, and it may mean that there's a bigger investment required to have this property within our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you for allowing me the time.

No, no, thank you.

Anything further from council.

Yes, Counselor Dabson.

Um you eloquently said everything that I was thinking about.

I I think that we have to rainbow has barely been built on.

I mean, everything's happening one side or the other.

And if we're going to start building community on rainbow, I think we need to build it with the idea that there's going to be more building community on rainbow.

And so I tend to agree that I think that if we're gonna pave part of third, maybe we should pave it to the end of the development outside the development.

That's basically all I you know, that was my biggest concern, you know.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anything further from council, Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, counselor.

I share a lot of thank you.

I share a lot of the same concerns that counselor Colbreth uh does.

She just says them a lot better.

Um I think that the challenge for me when someone comes in here presenting a master plan, but but a lot of the decisions or what we're gonna do is back loaded, it it makes me a little bit nervous because I think what tends to happen is is that we develop uh to a point, and then when that future time comes along, then it also kind of gets um scaled and reworked and everything.

And so uh over the course of maybe three to seven years, what we said that we were going to do at the first blush doesn't actually happen because we were able to kind of develop it in phases.

So, you know, things like what's happening with First Avenue is is troublesome.

Uh, you know, I I'm imagining that we're gonna find a way kind of out of you know, being able to do much with third with Third Avenue as well.

And so just the nature of kind of the disjointed nature, I guess, of how things develop sometimes uh across our city worries me because I've been around here long enough to see that like when a plan first comes in, you know, I've go back seven years now.

So when a plan first comes in in you know, in in 2021, there's you know these parks here, and all this is developed or whatever.

When it comes back in 2025, you know, the park has been removed or whittled down, and a lot of what was going to be R1 and this nice house is abutting different things changes to R4, and so the plan seems to shift and change um towards towards the benefit of kind of you know more uh aggressively putting homes in a place.

And I get it, I know we're trying to uh make affordable housing and then also make some money in doing so.

Um, but there's a lot to this plan that just seems uh it seems like a lot of the decisions are getting pushed into the future, and I just I think that I've seen what happens when those decisions get pushed into the future.

They tend to not work uh always in the the citizens or the communities uh favor sometimes as these things develop.

You know, I know there's nothing developing out there at Rainbow.

We just had last meeting we talked about expanding the the scope of how much we can do with rainbow, the width of the road and things like that.

And so we know as a as a city council, I know the city staff knows, I know you know, that rainbow is is going to develop, that it will be a really important uh arterial road for us connecting, uh bisecting the city, and so um that's a little bit of my concern as this thing goes forward.

I'm not I'm not saying I'm 100% against it.

I just kind of have concerns about the not straightforward nature that it seems uh is you know is the beginning of what we're getting uh pitched here for this rainbow area.

So um that's kind of all I had.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Anything further, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, Counselor.

I just want to uh echo the sentiments of my counterparts.

I think that it's super exciting that people want to continue to build and bring new ideas and um different options for people in our community because I think that that's what they're asking for, and I think that you're trying to do some creative things.

I I sincerely appreciate that.

Um I am concerned when there's holes in the middle of a master plan in the middle of a cul-de-sac in the middle of what could potentially be a through road.

Um, I also think that it is hard for us to sit here and discuss doing an overlay zone off of rainbow because we know we've got to think about the future, we've got to think about 10, 15, 20 years from now.

Um, and then for us to not also take that into consideration with your project, because that's not fair to be like, oh, well, this is here today, so we're not gonna worry about the future, but we are worrying about the future.

So I think for us to be um good stewards of our current roles, we need to take all of those things into consideration.

And so um again, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the creativity that's gone into this, but I think that um to continue to have joint efforts and be good stewards of the rear rancho community, we kind of need to take some leaves leaps and be forward thinking and not just in the now.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Mayor and uh counselors uh Jim Stroger with consensus planning.

I just wanted to speak to some of the comments, and and I think this is one of those areas where um our clients, along with property owners on the north side of the specific area plan, have kind of taken it upon themselves to update the specific area plan and really try and map out a course for this entire area.

As we've as has been discussed, it's kind of been skipped over a little bit, and um, and it's I think there's a great opportunity.

Um part of that was the existing zoning and the extent of the M1 zoning in an area that would be quite frankly very difficult to see develop as uh I think a business park as um originally anticipated, and that that change to the specific area plan was reviewed and approved by by staff, the planning commission, and this council.

Um I think one of the things that is always difficult in these areas where we have these out parcels is trying to figure out how to do master plan.

And I think in terms of it be these parcels being in the master plan or out of the master plan, is somewhat potato patato in in this case, because if in fact those some of those in out outparcels, those in holdings are acquired.

One of the things that we tried to do with the layout was, and you can if you think about this where those cul-de-sacks come in on either side, that if that parcel is acquired prior to plat, that could come in for a zone change, uh, that individual parcel, it could be brought into the master plan, that roadway would go through, and we could have a lot layout that is easily um updated, even if they stay out and they want to develop at some point in the future on their own, they could also avail themselves and benefit from the master plan and the development of the properties around them, which is gonna bring infrastructure and improvements and set the tone for that development that if they chose to come in and try and do something on their own, which is fine.

That's their that's their right.

And so I I do think that the while it's seems a little bit awkward, um, the layout because of those out parcels.

Um, it just really recognizes the difficulty of assembling and pulling all those into the process.

I would like to also speak to what Mr.

Aragon said about the traffic study.

I think uh Ms.

Rincone also spoke to this, that prior to preliminary plates, and certainly prior to site plan and development of the R6 portion, traffic study is gonna have to be done, and that is going to include a more detailed look at where that traffic is gonna go, what those improvements, both on-site as well as off-site, need to be in order to make sure that this works for the community as a whole.

And so a little bit is that that's a next step.

And I know that's always kind of difficult to say, oh, yeah, it's it's a next step.

We haven't done that yet, but it is part of the process, and I think the DPM, which has been referenced several times, does outline that those steps in that process to make sure that it's not just a matter of the developer saying, well, I'll make more money if I don't build that road today, or you know, I don't want to do those improvements.

There is a process in place to look at those um requirements and assess them.

And in some cases, as as Rincone mentioned, it's a negotiation.

Looking at, well, that money that would have been spent over here may be better spent on another the other edge of the project that that's where the need is.

And so some of those discussions are based on traffic study.

They're just they're based on negotiations that will occur between the developer and staff and to make sure that, and I think the assurance of that process is that the community's needs are looked out for.

I mean, I wish we all had you know the money to just pave all these major streets today and not be sort of beholden to development, and as development occurs in that proximity or adjacent to those roadways, but there is a process to make sure that that's thought through.

And I just want to make sure that um that even though sometimes the layout looks a little awkward, I think there is thought behind it, and it's somewhat aspirational, but I think that's aspirational in a good way to try and get and and there is a need for the housing and to see this area, and my hope is that we see this entire uh area that's covered by the specific area plan move forward in a way that starts to really generate activity and excitement over what happens in that area, and we create a true sense of community.

I think the parks that have been designed and located within this master plan will be huge benefits for the future residents as well as those who live nearby.

So with that, thank you.

Mr.

Mayor?

Counselor Dabson.

I just have a another question.

So you say you were talking about the entire area being built out.

So you're like from southern to northern-ish.

Will none of that be business commercial?

Because it seems like if we're building all these houses, we are definitely gonna need to have a grocery store and some other business in the area.

So I don't want it to be all houses.

Yeah, yeah.

So um Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Dabson.

So excellent point.

So in that area that was uh all business park, right?

Um the the amendment to the specific area plan also in an out aspirational way identified opportunities for some of that industrial zone land today to shift towards neighborhood commercial and community commercial that provides, I think, a more appropriate opportunity for businesses that will be of service to those neighborhoods.

So basically the north end and the south end of the specific area plan are anticipated to develop with residential neighborhoods, which hopefully provides uh the market so that we can see some commercial along Rainbow, kind of in that middle block that was all industrial and business park.

I I I didn't want to, I probably misspoke when I said we didn't want to see the the change from industrial to um other things, but part of that other things is neighborhood commercial and commercial services to support the area.

Okay, and so that is important, and that just probably follows the houses.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, thank you, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Councillor Weimer.

Director Rencone, I have a question for you that's kind of spurred on by this conversation we've been having up here.

The existing zoning of those, I guess we'll call them out parcels, even though they're in inside the the area.

What is the existing zoning?

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Weimer, uh it is R1.

R1, okay.

The reason I bring that up is so those lots, if they stay a hold out lot and choose to develop as an R1 lot will be will have the ability to develop exactly as an R1 lot is today, including such things as a mobile home.

Correct, a manufactured home.

I'm sorry, manufactured home, yep.

Okay, so I just bring that up because I think that's a further incentive for the property owner to acquire those lots because it protects their value and it protects their their customers, if you will, that are their future customers that are looking to buy into this development.

So while I share the concern and I'm not trying to make light of it, I think there is some incentive for this developer, this property owner, to continue working with those holdout lots to make those a part of the project.

Thank you Mr.

Mayor anything further thank you.

Okay thank you.

Mr.

Mayor members of the government body if I may and I may ask Amy to chime in a little bit um we've seen other master plans before without parcels uh in them uh fortunately some of the time those lots are able to be acquired um I think uh Mr.

Strozier uh said it well a tomato versus tomato um we could have a master plan that includes these outparcel lots that present a pretty picture but they're not and it's not developable until they acquire those right and so it's two ways to to paint the picture um this one does show some starkness um you know with the two cul de sacks there because of a lot 21 not being being acquired the alternative is if they were to show it included in the master plan and that lot is never acquired they would be coming back in the plenary process to work around that I think one thing that we're seeing here is there is a little more work to be done on the backside than a typical master plan.

I do appreciate the applicant putting forward that they intend to pursue um that it is their intent at this stage so we have eyes wide open that they that they are looking for some potential exemptions um are of the pavement paving of the roads the roads on on all sides of the development there is a time and a place and uh director Rincone uh alluded to this that it does make sense for us as a city to not see uh a road be paved that is not going to be used um on the the back side of a development and that road it becomes an asset on our books but it also becomes a liability and then it becomes a place where it's the neighborhood place to launch the fireworks every year because we have this nice paved road that no one's on um becomes a drag strip it becomes a way area where the weeds build up it becomes spray paint and lots of other reasons and we've had conversations with developers and really kind of you know we look at those scenarios and and say okay this road and you know we've done this previously I'd say in an afor informal manner until we added into the DPM.

Deleting this section makes sense and then what is the value of what has been deleted and where can that be allocated to something that adds more value and I think a good example I'd provide would be Montezuma that comes off of Broadmore and the developer there it did a a longer length of Montezuma beyond their requirements and got us pretty really you know got us to Guinevere got us to where we ended up having to blade a road that but then created a secondary access point to the shining star.

So it can make sense for us I think that does sometimes lead to some arm wrestling uh with the developer as we we go through that process um hopefully and uh as we've seen with the high range developments that had some outparcels uh they were able to acquire those and then bring them into the development um so there is a little bit of a cross the fingers the trust factor uh with the developer that they'll be able to land the plane and bring those lots into the development and uh maybe remove some of the hard edges and the hard lines or the hard stops that we are seeing in this development I appreciate all the comments uh on this and and make no mistake this is hard because we have this situation with all these antiquated platted lots and so you're between a rock and a hard place do you stop all development and hope for perfect as opposed to you know getting moving forward and holding people's land and um uh I would love to see this fully assembled but if you you sometimes if you wait until these things all to come together we've seen this in other developments they they just sit there and they sit there and they sit there and you know and then the demand may wane or for housing and we know right now we we need the housing um so I just I get frustrated because we have developers that are working really hard to come up with solutions to this problem um and you've got six holdout lots that are stopping all development you know and I just think there needs to be some press forward to put pressure on those landowners and and bringing forward a master plan and a development agreement uh I think puts a lot of pressure there.

I think the one thing that I really want to make sure that the people that if we if this gets all approved I don't know where this is all going to go at the end of the day but that notice goes out about those lots if they don't get assimilated that those are not going to become parks someday in the future and that homeowners understand that those were holdout lots because I've seen this before where there were holdout lots and rumors swirled that those were going to be a park someday and and they weren't and so just you know making sure that we're communicating this stuff to the citizens that you know that buy those properties in there.

Um, once again, it's not perfect, but I I want to say thank you guys for really I know there's been a struggle around this because of those holdout lots, and it's unfortunate that we have these individuals that are have these lots.

We don't know where they we don't know who they are sometimes.

We I don't you may know who all these whole holders are, but um they they they think that these are lottery ticket lots and you know they they're gonna hold out until they can get a million dollars for a half acre.

And it's just you know, with without the development there, um you all are putting in the infrastructure, they're gonna benefit from this and not have to pay anything to put that infrastructure in.

You're gonna pave the roads in front of these lots, and they're not gonna have to pay anything.

It's not like you're gonna stop the paving between one lot and the next, right?

So they're gonna get the benefit of a fully paved road and not have to pay anything in on that.

And so I I inherently see the uh uh the kind of unfairness to that because we have we thought about possibly doing uh an IDZ or um something like that that might bring these these lots in and they'd at least have to share in the expense of the infrastructure.

Mr.

Mayor, uh we are open to any options that would help us in this these lot acquisitions.

We uh reached out to these homeowners or lot owners, we've reached out to them.

We have correspondence.

Uh we're just not getting a very much response from them.

So um again, we're open to working with the city and staff to how we could help this and go forward to where we can acquire those lots.

Because if we wait for every holdout lot, we're just all development stops in Rear Rancho, and and I see the problem there, and it's very frustrating.

It's been a it's been a legacy issue for this for the city.

And you know, and I know what happened in the past is what happened in the past.

We are where we are today, and who who created all this is one question or another, but we are where we are today, and and figuring a way forward.

And I think that's why the I think so that's why I didn't watch the planning and zoning board meeting, but I think it's probably why they said, yeah, let's go ahead and move forward because there is such a demand for housing, and so uh it's it's a difficult situation.

I don't know where this is all gonna go, but I appreciate the hard work you guys are putting in to at least bring try to bring some solutions forward.

And Mr.

Mayor, just to follow up on that.

One thing I will say is that's that's one of the reasons we push so hard for the area plan amendment.

Now, obviously, we're trying to get this master plan in place so that we can move forward.

We have a plan that will allow us to move forward.

Oh thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I just I'm just throwing the IDZ out there, infrastructure development zone, because then that if you have a bigger portion of it, you can kind of bring those people in.

Um, I think Councillor Tyler's got his hand up.

Yeah, I was gonna call the question.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Any any objection to call the question?

Okay, hearing none.

We have a call to question.

Um we have a motion and a second on R 18.

And remember, we're gonna move right into 04.

So uh Miss Davis on R 18.

Thank you, sir.

Counselor Colbreth?

No.

Councilor Weimer?

Yes, Councilor Lynantine.

Yes, counselor Dabson.

Counselor Tyler.

No.

Counselor List.

Yes.

R 18 is approved.

Okay, moving on to 0.

We've already had discussion and deliberation on this.

So um I'll take a motion to approve 04.

Motion to approve 04.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Miss Davis, if you'll call the roll.

Councilor Colbrith.

No.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

No.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor Lynn and Tine.

Yes.

O4 is approved.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh moving on to 01 ordinance amending and restating ordinance number 26, enactment number 25 for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of City Rear Rancho, New Mexico water, wastewater system improvement, refunding revenue bonds, series 2026.

And there's a long paragraph there.

I'm just going to go right to utilities.

So Director Yar uh Yara.

I'm sorry, no.

Deputy Director Spangler.

That's right.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I've got to get all your names uh correct.

So uh Deputy Director Spangler.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Counselors.

I'm Melissa Spangler, Deputy Director of Financial Services.

Miss Yara apologizes for not being able to attend this evening.

Um this item is the second reading of ordinance 01.

The first reading occurred February 12th, 2026 and was unanimously approved.

Um this will amend ordinance number 26 to extend the timing for the anticipated issuance of 25 million dollars of utility revenue bonds, which is scheduled to occur at the end of this month.

It also approves the refunding of targeted maturities of previously issued utility revenue bonds and loans.

To implement a bond cycling, the program the city planned for requires two utility revenue bond issuances over the next five years at 25 million dollars each.

This ordinance establishes the parameters for the first of these bond issuances.

The bonds may be issued through a competitive sale or negotiated sale, depending on what is in the best interests of the city.

The new bonds will be issued in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 25 million, with an all-in interest cost estimated around 3.6 percent and a final maturity no later than May 15th, 2057.

The refunding bonds will be issued for the targeted maturities only if the market conditions are suitable to provide a positive present positive present value savings of at least three percent.

The potential net savings is estimated at 1.95 million net of issuance costs based on the information available on January 22nd of this year.

The proposed ordinance also delegates authority to approve final terms and to execute and deliver the bond pricing certificates, the bond purchase agreements if applicable, and all agreements and instruments required to attain delivery of the bond insurance policies and or the reserve account insurance policies, if any, to the mayor, city manager, and director of financial services.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve 01.

Motion to approve motion to approve 01.

Second.

I have a motion and second.

Uh Mr.

Van Horn.

Good evening again, Ms.

Mayor Counselors.

Um there's several uh ICIP items that are identified that the bonds are going to be used for.

I think for the most part, they're very good.

One notable one is four million dollars, excuse me, four million dollars for the injection well.

And uh what I would ask is whether or not you all understand what the need is for this injection well.

Have you gotten any advice from the public infrastructure advisory board?

Um earlier tonight, in response to what I I said in public forum, I was addressed for a lengthy time.

Uh, and I appreciate the the thank you, and I I appreciate what the mayor said.

Two weeks ago when I came before you the mayor and the deputy city manager gleefully talked about getting rid of the previous utilities commission and replacing it with a public infrastructure advice report.

Tonight when I addressed you all as the de facto public infrastructure advisory board, the mayor's talked for a long time about not really needing one because he certainly knows everything that's needed to know about this.

Well, if that's true, why do you even have a board?

I've heard the counselor from District 5 while she was campaigning, say that we have this public infrastructure advisory board.

Board doesn't meet if it does.

Last year I think it met twice.

The second meeting was mainly setting the schedule for this year, which they've already canceled the first meeting.

What's the purpose of having a board that replaced utilities commission if it never does anything and you don't even need it?

So I'd ask you all to think about this.

This is very important that we have another body looking at things like water rates.

They're given the ordinance that you all approved to increase water rates after you approved it.

What kind of advisory body is that?

Questions are about how government is functioning and transparency.

And I will continue to bring information to you all, even after our current mayor is replaced.

And I would ask you all to think about making the advisory bot board real or better yet, reenacting a utilities commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'll take first response to that.

We didn't say anything gleefully, it was a very difficult decision.

But anyway, I I object to the word gleeful, and that there was nothing gleeful about it.

Um and the fact of the matter is is that the largest rate increase in the city's history, over 50 percent rate increase happened under the advice of the utilities commission because the utilities commission had allowed this the utility to go into nearly insolvency.

So we had individuals on that utilities commission that had no previous experience in utilities operations ever.

So I'm gonna take it when I say stuff, uh this is Mr.

Van Horn.

Um I'm always willing to talk about this, but you tend to shift the narrative and try to make it something it wasn't.

So in this particular case, once again, we've got some professionals here that are trying to save ratepayers' money through the refinancing of bonds.

Um that will get us a much better interest rate because of the way the utility has been managed, thanks to this council and staff.

Our bond ratings as high as it's ever been.

Outside agencies say that this facility, this utility is running better.

We've replaced more infrastructure in this utility under this administration than all the administrations prior.

Every road that we've replaced, or being close to 50, if not more, we've replaced the water lines under the road and paid cash for those water lines with no corresponding debt.

So controlling debt has been a huge thing.

The previous utilities commission leaned on debt like you know, the credit card had no limit.

We've controlled that, and now we're refinancing some debt here to save the the ratepayers 1.95 million dollars in interest payments, which is huge.

That's very responsible, and that's very transparent.

It's very transparent.

There's nothing I love the you when everybody says we need to be more transparent.

All of these budgets are online, they're available for public review, they're available for public record.

When we say transparent, I think that that's just a word that people like to throw around and out of it as they said in that one movie.

I I don't think you know what that I don't think we know what that means.

You know, the I don't think it means what it's I don't think it means what you think it means, yes.

So I uh yeah, Princess Bride, thank you.

And and so all of these things are here.

Every one of us are willing to talk about it and and have discussions, but when we have individuals putting memes online that show that we're injecting raw sewage into the aquifer, that I'm I'm very well aware of where those memes came from, is so irresponsible.

No, I'm not saying anything.

I said I know where those memes are coming from.

Um well, you have bagels and coffee with the individual at the bagel shop.

So we'll we'll go with association.

So this is that is public fear mongering from somebody that should be.

If you're really uh acting in the public sphere when you step here up here and talk, you should be more transparent, say, um, yeah, we shouldn't be putting memes like that out, scaring the public.

So and coming up here with water reports saying, you know, babies babies are gonna be gonna die from the water they're drinking in Rio Rancho.

And and that's basically what you said at the last meeting.

And it's it's irresponsible, it's not good conversation.

And when you and I had a conversation about PFOS, you completely misquoted me in the email.

And it wasn't even worth addressing when you said this is what the mayor said.

That's not what I you and I had a 30-minute conversation and you condensed it to two sentences.

So not transparent on your part, because if we want to have a transparent conversation, let's talk about what I said about PFOS.

I'm I've I've always invited you, I've always invited you.

But we're gonna have a conversation, and I I guess we're gonna have to record it because every time I have a conversation with you, you you twist up the words and say I said something that I didn't say, and I'm just gonna point that out.

We've got to have an honest conversation about where utility is, and you walk up here and you say, You guys don't know anything about this.

I I'll be happy to talk about water all day long.

You know, I love to say the words I've immersed myself in water information.

So but the uh I've read books on it over and over again.

So once again, while I appreciate what you're saying, we need to have honest conversations and not twist words like we gleefully did anything.

And that's what's that's what's got me started here, Steve.

Because we we need it, but anyway, yeah, I'm sorry.

Um you said it, I'm I'm done here.

long you know I love to say the words I've immersed myself in water information so but the uh I've read books on it over and over again so once again while I appreciate what you're saying we need to have honest conversations and not twist words like we gleefully did anything and that's what's that's what's got me started here Steve because we we need it but anyway yeah I'm sorry I'm you said it I'm I'm done here the the council wants to move on it's just I'm not gonna let misinformation be spoken from the DS when we've got amazing individuals that are working very hard in the interest of the citizens to get this work done and we're not gonna have our city manager our deputy city manager our utilities director and all the people that work on this day in and day out diminished with misinformation and so we'll have the conversation I'll be happy to sit down and talk with you any day but that being said um you know we need to have real information when it comes to this water utility that being let me just move on from there I'll I have a motion and a second on this any comments by council anybody else sign up to speak on this item no sir there is not okay hearing none miss Davis oh one thank you councillor Lennon Time yes Counselor Dabson yes Councilor Weimer yes Counselor Tyler yes Counselor List yes Councillor Calbreuth yes oh one is approved thank you that concludes our regularly scheduled agenda um moving on to the city manager report mr mayor members of the governing body good evening uh just like the couple highlight a couple things in uh chronological order on Saturday March 21st um we will have our springs spring arts and crafts festival at Sabana Grande on March 22nd um gentlemen yeah Steve we're still meeting up here and we can hear you up here so give us just a minute and you can talk to thank you on March 22nd um the Rio Rancho uh fire and rescue department is hosting St.

Baldrick's um I like to think of it as they're aspiring to have a stylish hairdo but they're doing it for a good cause minus genetics or DNA or somewhere in there but um definitely uh check that out appreciate the fire department for their efforts there to raise money for a good cause on starting on um March 23rd for over 60 days or so um we will start some crack patch work in um in Vistrata in district three and then on March 31st um early voting starts uh please visit the city's website uh for more information for the details and the locations and the times I won't list those out here but I'll have some more information on March 26th but early voting starts on March 31st um please visit the city's website for more information thank you Mr.

Mayor and members of the government and let me encourage everybody to go to St.

Baldrick's now last year I don't know I might have to throw down some challenges because uh because you know I I put out a challenge that if we could raise uh what was it five or ten thousand dollars that I'd go ahead and let them bald me and I did so now Carrie's not gonna let me do that again we've decided that that was a that was you know uh we'll make the we'll we'll make the contribu we'll make the contribution but it won't come from the hair this time so but uh anyway St.

Baldrick's amazing foundation please go out and support him I appreciate that um okay having nothing else we're adjourned thank you