The Regular Governing Body Meeting of the City of Rio Rancho convened on March 26, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting included public forum, consent calendar approvals, two public hearings, and three discussion and deliberation items. Mayor Greggory D. Hull presided, with six of seven council members present (Deputy Mayor Jeremy Lenentine excused). All action items were approved unanimously.
Let's see. Counselor Tyler, would you lead us, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God invisible liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please remain standing as we take a moment of silence and reflection for all of our first responders out there that put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our communities safe. So with that, a moment of silence, please. Thank you very much. You may be seated. That microphone is hot. Okay, please silence all electronic devices while attending governing body meetings. And for the record, uh I will announce the names of the governing body members when I say your name. Uh please acknowledge your presence by saying presence. Uh councillor Dabson is joining us online. Present. Thank you. Councilor Lynentine has been excused. Uh Councillor Tyler. Present. Councillor Weimer, present. Counselor Culbra. 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 for public forum comments at any meeting. And first up, we have Mr. Juan Martinez. Good afternoon. I'm one of the advisory board members for the public infrastructure, and I just had a few questions today. I actually prepared a statement. So I'm going to read it out. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members. I would like to address the city's justification for restricting the sell of retired police vehicle and government assets to government agencies only on the basis of cost saving and practicality. While the city asserts that removing police equipment costs approximately $1,200 per vehicle, thereby offsetting potential revenue from public auction. This claim does not fully account for the broader financial picture. First, retired police vehicles often retain significant resale value even in their decommissioned state. Across the country, municipalities that allow public auctions routinely generate competitive bids that exceed expected returns. Even after accounting for minimum disminable discommissioning, the assumption that public sal will not be financial beneficiary is not supported by comparative practice and other jurisdictions. Second, the city presents equipment removal as an all-in or nothing expense. However, not all components require full removal prior to sell. Many cities implement partial decommissioning standards that address safety and legal concerns, such as removing emergency lights and insignias while leaving non-critical modifications intact. This significantly reduces the cost while still making vehicles suitable for civilian purchase. Third, by limiting the sales exclusively to government agencies, the city restricts market competition. A smaller buyer pool naturally leads to lower cell prices, open prices. Open public auctions by contrast create competitive bidding environments that can drive prices upward and maximize returns on public assets. Additionally, the argument that these vehicles are unsuitable for civilian use without extensive restoration is not universally accurate. Many retired police vehicles are already purchased and successfully repurposed by civilians and other municipalities.