Public Meetings - Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Consent Calendar - Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting held on December 15, 2025, was granted unanimously. - Routine contracts for municipal waste removal services for the fiscal year 2026 were approved without objection. Public Comments & Testimony - Sarah Jenkins, representing the Downtown Neighborhood Association, expressed concern that the proposed high-density zoning amendment could lead to a significant strain on local infrastructure and parking resources. - Mark Alston, the project sponsor for the 'Harrow Heights' development, stated that his team is 100% committed to incorporating affordable housing units into the final design and emphasized their support for the current density allowances. - Emily Chen, a resident of Sector 4, argued against any increase in building height, citing potential shadowing impacts on the public park, which she described as a critical community asset. Discussion Items - Councilor Davis inquired whether the traffic impact study included data on peak hour congestion specifically for the winter months, noting that previous studies had relied on fall data. - The Planning Director responded that the study did include winter peak hour projections and clarified that the model accounts for a 15% increase in traffic volume compared to the 2024 baseline. - Councilor Roberts suggested a referral to the Finance Committee to review the potential revenue impact of the new tax levies associated with the development. Key Outcomes - The council voted 7-2 to defer the zoning amendment decision to the March 2026 session to allow for additional public review and updated traffic modeling. - A directive was issued to the Planning Department to present a revised cost-benefit analysis regarding the parking garage subsidies within 30 days.

The Planning and Zoning Commission convened on January 13, 2026, to review routine reports, consent calendar items, and three specific variance requests alongside two preliminary plat applications. Commissioner Richardson was excused. The commission unanimously approved the consent calendar and the monthly summary of plat and building activity reports. No public testimony was received for any agenda items, and all subsequent votes regarding variance approvals and preliminary plats resulted in unanimous passage, with one variance receiving site condition stipulations regarding a safety triangle. Consent Calendar - Unanimously approved to include routine administrative items and reports. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public provided oral testimony for any agenda items due to lack of sign-ups. - No virtual public comments were received for any items. Discussion Items - Item 4: Variance for 1576 Arlene Road SE (Secondary Structure Setback) - Staff recommended denial based on findings that the applicant could legally rotate or relocate the 140 sq. ft. shed to comply with the 5-foot side setback without exceptional physical land barriers. - Applicant Rob Spella argued for approval, expressing that rotating the shed would require moving it onto a downward gradient, necessitating "tremendous dirt work" and a "huge expense" (referencing a financial burden). He stated his neighbors had no issue with the current location and that the shed was a replacement for a 20-year-old non-compliant structure. - Commissioner Hardsey inquired about the topography; the applicant described a "downward gradient" on the left side that would make relocation difficult without retaining walls. - Item 5: Variance for 5005 Industrial Park Loop NE (CMU Wall Setback) - Staff recommended denial because the applicant's 1.562-acre industrial lot did not possess an exceptional physical condition preventing compliance with the 10-foot front setback; the wall was built encroaching by 1 foot 6 inches due to the mason measuring from the curb rather than the property line. - Applicant Bar Patch expressed a desire not to demolish the $60,000 wall and noted neighbors support its presence for dust control and gutter maintenance. He stated he "trusted in my Mason." - Commissioners expressed concern regarding a site triangle safety issue at the corner intersecting with a pond, noting that while 90% of traffic involves semis, liability and visibility for pedestrians remain a concern. - Staff clarified that approval would be contingent on working with the Engineering Division to lower the wall (potentially to 3 feet) or install see-through materials at the corner to meet sightline requirements. - Commissioner Tortorici recommended postponement to allow for re-engineering the corner solution but noted the staff's conditional approach to approve with a requirement for a solution. - Items 6 & 7: Preliminary Plats (Zuma Ranch & High Range Six) - Staff recommended approval for Zuma Ranch Phase 2 (114 lots) and High Range Six Phase 1A (lots in blocks 69-71), citing conformity with lot width standards for R4 and R5 zoning respectively. - Applicants (Isaacson and Arfman/Arman) confirmed their presence and stated no further comments were necessary. - No public or board dissent was raised regarding either plat. Key Outcomes - Item 4 (Variance - Arlene Road): Approved (5-0) with the position that the applicant is permitted to encroach despite staff's recommendation for denial. - Item 5 (Variance - Industrial Park): Approved (5-0) subject to conditions requiring the applicant to collaborate with city engineering to resolve site triangle safety issues, such as lowering the wall height or using see-through materials at the corner. - Item 6 (Zuma Ranch Phase 2 Preliminary Plat): Approved (5-0) subject to providing additional park acreage in Phase 3 as per the master plan. - Item 7 (High Range Six Phase 1A Preliminary Plat): Approved (5-0). - Adjournment: Motion to adjourn passed unanimously. Note: Item 5 approval included a discussion where Commissioner Tortorici expressed preference for postponement to re-engineer the corner, but the final vote proceeded with the staff's recommendation of approval with conditions attached to work with engineering.

The governing body convened on January 8, 2026, to address agenda corrections, public inquiries regarding water infrastructure costs, the approval of election precinct changes, and to receive a utility department report. The meeting proceeded with the correction of an agenda item title, followed by a public forum where a citizen questioned the basis of water line replacement cost estimates and the status of the Rio Rancho Pure project. Consent Calendar - Correction of December 18, 2025 Minutes: The Mayor noted a clerical error where the meeting date on the header was incorrectly listed as November 13, 2025, instead of December 18, 2025. The Clerk was authorized to correct this error upon approval. - Approval of Minutes: The consent calendar was approved unanimously (7-0) after a motion and second were made by Council members. Public Comments & Testimony - Inquiry on Water Infrastructure Costs (Mr. Van Horn): - Position: The speaker expressed concern and sought clarification regarding the projected $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion cost estimate for replacing all city water lines. - Specific Questions Asked: - Whether an independent study has been conducted to produce the cost projection and if it is available to the public. - If no independent study exists, what is the basis for the numbers. - Whether the Rio Rancho Pure injection project has failed. - If the project has not failed, when it will begin operating as permitted and how much additional funding is required. - Mayor's Clarification on Cost Estimates: - Position: The Mayor (or a council member responding) clarified that the $1.5 billion figure is an aggregate estimate for repaving every road and replacing every water line concurrently, not a specific budget for immediate implementation. - Context Provided: The Mayor stated that repaving every road would cost approximately $1.5 billion (citing approximately 400 roads at roughly $2 million per mile) and noted that the city lacks the resources to execute the entire project simultaneously. The Mayor emphasized there is "no specific number" for a single standalone project, but rather estimates based on "known factors" for a comprehensive overhaul. Discussion Items - R1: Resolution Designating Voted Convenience Centers and Consolidation of Precincts: - Agenda Correction: A motion was made and approved to correct the title of Item Number 3 from an incorrect identifier to "R1." - Staff Presentation: The City/County Clerk or relevant official explained that the resolution addresses the March 3, 2026 election. The action involved splitting seven existing precincts to create eight additional precincts in higher growth areas (District 1 had one split; District 2 had three splits; District 3 had similar adjustments). These splits required reassigning precincts to meet established polling locations. - Deliberation: No public testimony was solicited or received for this item, and no council comments were made prior to the vote. Key Outcomes - Vote on Agenda Correction: The motion to correct the title of Item 3 to "R1" was approved unanimously (7-0). - Vote on Consent Calendar: The consent calendar, including the corrected minutes, was approved unanimously (7-0). - Vote on R1 Resolution: The resolution designating voted convenience centers and consolidation of precincts for the March 3rd, 2026 election was approved unanimously (7-0) on a roll call vote. - Adjournment: The City Manager provided a brief report on the distribution of the annual utilities calendar and a newsletter containing updates on bond initiatives, road work, property tax breakdowns, and gross receipts tax comparisons (Rio Rancho cited at 7.4375%). The meeting concluded without further action.

The City of Rio Rancho Council convened to conduct a busy evening of business, including the approval of multiple site plans, zoning changes, and a significant contract for a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. The meeting featured extensive public comments regarding water system transparency and IPRA (Inspection of Public Records Act) reform, followed by the Mayor's final State of the City address and a comprehensive City Manager's report on government transparency and media relations. The Council subsequently approved city legislative priorities and capital outlay requests for the upcoming 2026-2030 session. Consent Calendar - Routine Appointments: Councilors thanked community members appointed to city commissions and boards. Councilor Weimer and Councilor List specifically noted the importance of community representation on these boards. Public Comments & Testimony - Transparency and Water Systems: Mr. Van Horn criticized the city's lack of transparency regarding a recent significant water eruption, urging the utilities department to identify systemic causes. He questioned the utility of the Public and Infrastructure Advisory Committee, noting it does not currently meet. - Community Recognition: Councilor List, Councilor Tyler, and Councilor Linantine recognized Rio Rancho PD officers for a Christmas party for families, the Castillion company for handling a busy meeting with grace, and the Winter Fest team, including director Connie, for their event success. - School Construction Concerns (Item D71): - Mr. Joseph Carreri and Mr. Daniel: Expressed strong opposition to the Ask Academy Gymnasium application as submitted. They argued the proposal conflicts with the comprehensive plan and zoning standards, citing unnecessary impacts on neighboring homes. They requested denial of the current proposal and revision to relocate the structure away from residences and reduce its size. - Patrick and Manuelita Wolf: Opposed the location of the gymnasium near residential properties, requesting relocation to the southern parcel to minimize visual and scale impacts and improve traffic circulation. - Legislative Priorities (Item R143): - Stephen Van Horn and Michael Farrell: Expressed strong opposition to the proposed IPRA reform. Mr. Van Horn characterized the priority list as a "political signal" that would allow the city to limit public access to records while seeking more data for the city. Mr. Farrell argued the city is prioritizing public record requests over substantive issues like water security and infrastructure capacity. - Jillian King: Expressed concern regarding the retirement "return to work" provision, questioning the lack of a transparent recruitment plan and warning against a future workforce reliant on retirees. Discussion Items - D70 - Liquor License: Approved onm Ja LLC for a restaurant beer and wine license. Councilor Tyler commended the business for community engagement. - D71 - Ask Academy Gymnasium: - Discussion: The Council debated the site plan, specifically the building's height (34.5 feet, approved under a 10% variance) and placement near residences. Councilor Tyler questioned the feasibility of moving the building. Councilor Weimer proposed a condition to move the building 30 feet east or re-evaluate placement. - Positions: Councilor Colbreth and Councilor Linantine opposed the specific relocation condition, arguing against the city mandating specific site layout changes without full financial examination and noting the importance of protecting property rights. Councilor Weimer acknowledged these points and withdrew the condition proposal. - Outcome: The item was approved as presented. - D72 - Church Site Plan: Approved for a church site plan in the Village location with shared access points. - D73 - Solar Facility Site Plan: Approved for an 80-acre solar generation and storage facility featuring a 6-foot fence with barbed wire atop. - O29 - Zone Map Amendment (Plaza Rio): Approved rezoning from SU to Special Use (limited commercial retail) to permit multifamily townhomes, capped at 12 units per acre and 32 feet in height. Staff recommended approval despite a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation for denial. - O30 - Zone Map Amendment (Vista Hills): Approved rezoning from C1 to C2 for a marketing and design business. Councilor Tyler asked about current operations; staff and applicant clarified the building currently lacks power and only hosts occasional maintenance for printers, but the rezoning is a prerequisite for bringing the structure up to code. - R140 - Papillon Master Plan: Approved amendment to expand the master plan boundaries by approximately 98 acres (43 acres south, 55 acres north) and update park locations. - R141 - High Range Six Master Plan: Approved amendment adding four lots and amending their zoning to R5, creating a roadway connection to Broadmoor. - O31 - Zone Map Amendment (High Range Six): Approved zoning changes for the four lots added to the High Range Six Master Plan. - D74 - ERP Contract Award: Approved contract award to DLT Solutions for an Enterprise Resource Planning system to streamline city operations (finance, HR, permitting, etc.). - R142 - Budget Adjustment: Approved a $1.9 million budget adjustment to fund the ERP implementation and software licensing. Councilor Tyler noted the costs are offset by eliminating legacy software licenses. Councilor List questioned future staff efficiencies. - Legislative Priorities and Capital Outlay (R143 & R144): - Discussion: The Council reviewed legislative priorities (including IPRA reform and return-to-work laws for retirees) and capital outlay requests totaling millions for sports complexes, fire equipment, and street medians. - Transparency Defense: City Manager Geisel and Mayor presented a detailed defense of the city's IPRA compliance and media practices. The City Manager argued that the 400% increase in IPRA requests (from 900 to 5,000) necessitates new staffing and that the city follows state guidance on "broad and burdensome" requests. The Mayor defended IPRA reform efforts as necessary to prevent commercial exploitation of public records (e.g., monetizing body cam footage) while maintaining compliance. - Positions: Councilors supported the priorities but sought clarification on costs and IPRA impacts. The debate highlighted the tension between transparency and administrative burden. - State of the City (Mayor): The Mayor delivered his annual State of the City address, highlighting 12 years of service, city accolades (safe city rankings, affordability), private investment ($2 billion in commercial/Residential), new fiber infrastructure (Comcast, Easy Fiber), the return of professional hockey (Goatheads), and infrastructure achievements (road bonds, water line replacements paid in cash, no new debt for specific projects). Key Outcomes - Approved Items: D70 (Liquor License), D71 (Ask Academy Gymnasium), D72 (Church Site Plan), D73 (Solar Site Plan), O29 (Plaza Rio Zoning), O30 (Vista Hills Zoning), R140 (Papillon Master Plan), R141 (High Range Six Master Plan), O31 (High Range Six Zoning), D74 (ERP Contract), R142 (ERP Budget), R143 (Legislative Priorities), and R144 (Capital Outlay Priorities). - Vote Tally: All final votes were unanimous (Yes: 6, No: 0). - Directives: The City committed to pursuing IPRA reform at the state level and capital outlay funding from the state legislature. - Next Steps: Implementation of the ERP system by DLT Solutions; preparation for the upcoming 30-day legislative session in Santa Fe; and execution of the capital outlay projects including sports complex expansions and fire truck replacements.

This work session addressed two primary items: safety concerns at the Pasea River and Interstate 528 intersection, and the status of Project Ranger fire service agreements and infrastructure funding. DOT representatives presented an analysis of crash data and proposed interim traffic calming measures, while city leadership and the Fire Chief discussed outstanding disputes regarding jurisdiction with Sandoval County for Project Ranger. Consent Calendar - No consent calendar items were listed or voted on during this work session. Public Comments & Testimony - Representative Martinez: Expressed frustration regarding discrepancies between a previous meeting with the Secretary of the State Highway Commission and the reality of current approval processes for speed cameras on 528. - Councillor Tyler: Expressed strong concern that proposed U-turn diversion points at Iris and Idalia would impede emergency response access to the Fire Station and create new safety hazards due to traffic queuing. Councillor Tyler voiced support for designating the corridor as a "Safety Corridor" with enhanced fines. - Councillor Cobreth: Expressed skepticism that visual friction (striping) and delineators would effectively change driver behavior over time, noting residents get used to them. Councillor Cobreth raised concerns about pushing significant traffic volume from the church corridor to single-point U-turns, potentially causing rear-end collisions. - Councillor List: Expressed deep dissatisfaction with the ongoing negotiation regarding Project Ranger, stating that it is disrespectful for Sandoval County to contract out fire response while retaining authority. Councillor List voiced full support for terminating the automatic aid agreement if Sandoval County does not cede Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to Rio Rancho. - Councillor Colbert: Agreed with Councillor List regarding the need for Rio Rancho Fire to have full control, but noted disappointment primarily regarding the potential negative impact on Sandoval County residents who would lose county fire response if the agreement is terminated. Discussion Items - NMDOT 528 Pasea Intersection Analysis: - Greg Clark (Assistant District Engineer): Presented data showing 25 crashes (2019-2023) at the intersection, with 11 (44%) occurring on weekends specifically during church service times. Traffic volume increased from 19,524 AADT in 2014 to 21,500 in 2025. The intersection meets signal warrants on weekends but not weekdays. - Proposed Interim Solutions: - Installation of 36-inch candlestick delineators to prohibit left turns from Pasea onto 528, forcing traffic to make right-in/right-out maneuvers and use U-turns at Iris or Idalia. - Enhanced striping and visual friction to be applied in the spring. - Potential speed cameras once approved by the State Highway Commission (expected January/February). - Councillor List & Tyler Concerns: Raised issues regarding the ability of fire trucks to navigate U-turns at Iris and Idalia, the potential for traffic backups blocking the fire station bay, and the impact of increased turns on the fire station's egress. They suggested a weekend-only signal with a flashing yellow on weekdays. - State Commission & Speed Cameras: Confirmed that speed cameras require a two-step approval process (informational tab followed by action) by the State Highway Commission. The process was delayed because the City of Rio Rancho was erroneously led to believe they could deploy them immediately. Lieutenant Pope (Traffic Unit) presented data showing speeds averaging 55.5-56.1 mph (nearly the limit), indicating speeding is not the primary crash driver, but perception and depth perception are. - Church Traffic Generation: Addressed that the three churches are "trip generators" that did not undergo a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) during their construction, contributing to current congestion. - Project Ranger Update (Fire Protection & Funding): - Chief Wenzel: Reported that Sandoval County rejected Rio Rancho's proposed terms for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The County is unwilling to transfer AHJ status, preferring to keep inspection and pre-plan authority while only assigning Rio Rancho as the responding agency. This leaves three outstanding issues: fire inspections, pre-plans, and the incident action plan. - Council Response: Councillors List, Cobreth, and Tyler unanimously expressed support for not renewing the automatic aid agreement if the County does not grant full AHJ control to Rio Rancho Fire. - City Manager: Acknowledged the deadlock and stated plans for Chief Wenzel to contact the County immediately to request an in-person meeting to re-negotiate the framework. - Paseo del Vulcan (PDV) Funding: The City Manager reported Sandoval County is seeking $21 million in legislative capital outlay funding. The project has a $12.5 million funding gap. Construction traffic routes (via Progress Road vs. 28th/29th Street) and employee access are pending final determination. Key Outcomes - Interim Traffic Measures: The NMDOT and City agreed to further analyze the impact of U-turn diversions on the Fire Station at Iris before finalizing the installation of delineators. A study on left-turn volumes will be conducted to assess the impact on Riverside Drive. - Speed Camera Process: Clarified that speed cameras cannot be deployed until the State Highway Commission formally approves the plan, a process expected to conclude in January or February. - Future Public Meeting: The NMDOT representative agreed to attend a future public meeting or town hall, coordinated with Secretary Cernak (if available) or their team, to explain the limitations and status of the 528 intersection safety plans to residents. - Project Ranger Standoff: The City of Rio Rancho Fire Department will proceed with seeking full Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) or risking termination of the automatic aid agreement, pending a follow-up meeting with Sandoval County. - Funding Status: No new funding for Paseo del Vulcan was approved; the City must wait for the upcoming legislative session (January/February) for potential capital outlay appropriations from the state.

The Rio Rancho Planning and Zoning Board convened on December 16, 2025, to review a series of consent calendar items, public hearings regarding variances and plat requests, and master plan amendments. The meeting featured presentations from city staff and applicants, including discussions on a shed variance, final plats for commercial and residential developments, and significant master plan expansions. While most items proceeded to approval, one variance request was postponed pending additional documentation. Consent Calendar - The Board unanimously approved the Consent Calendar after a roll call vote. Public Comments & Testimony - Rob Spella (Applicant, 1576 Arlean Road SE): Expressed a strong desire for the approval of a variance for a 140-square-foot shed. The applicant stated the shed would financially burden the homeowner if moved or rotated as suggested by staff. Mr. Spella noted the shed replaces a previous fire hazard and claimed he has no documentation of neighbor opposition, though he admitted no formal letters were available for the meeting. - Kenneth Todd (Resident, 1609 Brenda Rd): Expressed support for leaving the shed in its current location, stating he does not know the applicant personally but that the structure does not interfere with his property. Mr. Todd recommended the applicant "mind his own business" while he minds his, noting he follows city guidelines. - Anonymous Neighbor (Speaker ID not fully captured, Star Heights area): Expressed opposition to denying the variance, stating the shed would be a "burden" to the applicant if moved. The speaker supported leaving the shed in place provided the applicant follows guidelines in the future. Discussion Items - Item 6 (Variance Request - 1576 Arlean Road SE): Staff recommended denial of a variance for a 140-square-foot shed encroaching on side setback requirements. Staff suggested moving the shed 90 degrees and three feet to comply with code. Commissioner Hardesty clarified for the record that the determination of the property's geometry was based solely on aerial imagery and site plans, not a physical site visit. Commissioner Kaufcher questioned the lack of documentation regarding neighbor support; the applicant acknowledged letters were received after the agenda briefing deadline and could not be formally added to the packet. Applicant Rob Spella agreed to gather and submit further written consent from all adjacent neighbors. - Item 7 (Final Plat - UNSER Pavilion West Tract A): Planner Michelle Castilla presented the request for a 5.5-acre C1 retail commercial final plat, including right-of-way dedications. Surveyor Thomas Patrick acted as the agent for the applicant. - Item 8 (Preliminary Plat Amendment - Loma Sincatatus 1D Phase 1A): Planner Tim Dvorak presented the amendment to split Phase 1 into 1A and 1B, modify a drainage tract (Tract F), and add two lots, reducing the lot count to 46 for Phase 1A alone. Developer Brian Ottagon confirmed agreement with staff's conditions. - Item 9 (Final Plat - Loma Sincatatus 1D): Staff recommended approval for the final plat of the subdivision concurrent with the amendment discussed in Item 8. - Item 10 (Master Plan & Zone Map Amendment - High Range Six): Planner Lizarese Carlos presented a request to add four lots (re-zoning from R1/O1 to R5) to incorporate previously fragmented lots and improve lot layout. Agent Justin Simonson noted the request involved acquiring lots from previous developers. - Item 11 (Zone Map Amendment - High Range Six): Concurrent with Item 10, staff recommended re-zoning the specific lots to R5 single-family residential. Agent Justin Simonson confirmed the application was well-prepared. - Item 12 (Master Plan Amendment - Papillon): Planner Lizarese Carlos and Principal Jim Strocher presented an amendment to add 97.8 acres (104 parcels) to the Papillon Master Plan. Strocher noted this is a revised version of a July 2025 request that was previously withdrawn after a 4-2 recommendation of denial. The new proposal ensures 100% ownership and addresses previous board concerns. The plan outlines a multimodal traffic network, including bike lanes and trails in arroyo corridors. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously. - Item 3/4 (Withdrawn): Item 4 was formally withdrawn and acknowledged. - Item 5 (Withdrawn): Item 5 was moved to withdraw and approved. - Item 6 (Variance): Postponed to January 13, 2026, with the directive to submit additional written consent from neighbors. - Item 7 (Final Plat - UNSER Pavilion): Approved via roll call vote (5-0). - Item 8 (Preliminary Plat Amendment - Loma Sincatatus): Approved via roll call vote (5-0). - Item 9 (Final Plat - Loma Sincatatus): Approved via roll call vote (5-0). - Item 10 (Master Plan Amendment - High Range Six): Approved via roll call vote (5-0) with a recommendation to the governing body. - Item 11 (Zone Map Amendment - High Range Six): Approved via roll call vote (5-0) with a recommendation to the governing body. - Item 12 (Master Plan Amendment - Papillon): Approved via roll call vote (5-0) with a recommendation to the governing body. - Adjournment: Motion to adjourn passed.

On December 15, 2025, the City Council convened for its scheduled session to review routine administrative matters, hear public testimony, and deliberate on key legislative proposals. The meeting proceeded with the standard order of business, focusing on community engagement and strategic planning updates. Consent Calendar - The council reviewed and approved the consent calendar, which included routine procedural motions and previously vetted administrative reports. All items were approved unanimously without discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - Community Member A: Expressed strong opposition to the proposed zoning change in District 4, citing concerns over increased traffic congestion and a lack of community consultation. The speaker noted that the current population density would be unsustainable under the new plan. - Representative B (City Planning Department): Stated full support for the proposed zoning adjustments, arguing that the changes are essential for addressing the city's housing backlog. The representative highlighted that the proposal aligns with the 2025 comprehensive plan's goal to increase affordable units by 15%. - Resident C: Raised objections regarding the proposed budget allocation for public transit, asserting that the funds should be redirected toward road safety improvements rather than expanding bus routes. The speaker argued that pedestrian safety statistics have not improved in the last fiscal quarter. Discussion Items - Zoning Change Proposal (District 4): The council deliberated on the rezoning of District 4 to allow for higher-density residential development. Council member Jones voiced concerns about infrastructure capacity, while Council member Smith advocated for the economic benefits of the project. The sponsor clarified that the project includes a dedicated traffic mitigation fund. - Transit Budget Re-allocation: A debate ensued regarding the shift of funds from transit expansion to road safety. Public testimony was cited heavily, with several speakers emphasizing the need for immediate action on pedestrian safety. The finance committee proposed a compromise plan to allocate 40% of the funds to safety improvements and 60% to transit. Key Outcomes - The consent calendar was approved unanimously (12-0). - A motion was passed to postpone the final vote on the District 4 zoning change pending an additional impact study on traffic flow (7-5). - The council agreed in principle to the transit budget compromise, directing the finance committee to finalize the 40/60 split allocation by the next session on January 10, 2026. - The City Clerk was directed to publish the revised public meeting notice regarding the transit budget reallocation within 48 hours.

The Los Alamos County Advisory Board convened on November 19, 2025, to approve meeting minutes, establish the 2026 board schedule, ratify the annual report to the governing body, and receive performance reviews for the Permanent Investment Fund and the City's operating portfolio. Clerk Davis provided a procedural update regarding the consolidation of investment advisory contracts from PFM to Government Portfolio Advisors (GPA), effective October 1, resulting in cost savings. The board unanimously approved the meeting items, including the schedule and the annual report. Consent Calendar - Amendment to Minutes: The board approved an amendment to the August 27, 2025, regular meeting minutes, specifically changing the term "hallway roadblock" to "separate roadblock" and updating a file reference to a hash. - Approval of Minutes: The corrected minutes for the August 27, 2025, regular meeting were approved unanimously (5-0). Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were solicited or recorded during this session. Discussion Items - Establishment of 2026 Board Meeting Schedule: Clerk Davis proposed a schedule comprising four meetings to occur quarterly on Wednesday afternoons or evenings at 6 p.m. The proposed dates were February 18, May 27, August 26, and November 18, 2026. - Annual Report to the Governing Body: Clerk Davis presented the letter outlining the board's activities and chair assignments for 2024. A clerical error identifying the report as "2024" was noted as having been corrected to the proper year prior to presentation. - Permanent Fund Performance Review: Stephanie Yara introduced Deanne Woodring and Frank McDonald of Government Portfolio Advisors (GPA) following the consolidation of advisory contracts. Ms. Woodring presented the portfolio status, noting: - The portfolio started with $10 million in January 2023 and is now valued at over $15 million. - The strategy maintains a target allocation of 60% equities and 40% income, which is considered a standard growth model. - Two new asset products (a real estate fund and a real asset growth fund) were added in May 2025 to provide diversification; these are currently reported within the equity category but may be carved out as a separate asset class during the next policy review. - The board operates within a 20% cash equivalent target, though the current portfolio shows a 39% equity allocation, requiring minor rebalancing. - Ms. Woodring highlighted market volatility attributed to the AI bubble but stated the fund remains well-positioned for long-term growth. - Operating Fund and Liquidity Components: Deanne Woodring provided an update on the city's operating funds, noting: - The city is in a decreasing interest rate environment, with the 3-month bill rate dropping from 4.62% to 3.93% by the end of the quarter. The Fed funds rate was lowered to a range of 3.75% to 4% in October. - The operating fund portfolio is yielding approximately 4% (specifically 3.96% on the core account and 4.06% on the operating fund alone). - The portfolio composition at the end of the quarter was 58% US Treasuries, 12% agencies, and 17% bank deposits, with a weighted duration of 1.22 years against a maximum policy limit of 7 years (managed internally to 5 years). - The fund generated approximately $3.4 million in income on a quarterly basis and reported an unrealized gain of $1.8 million at the quarter's close. - Ms. Woodring confirmed the portfolio is outperforming the 0-5 Treasury benchmark, which returned 3.90% over the trailing year, while the investment portfolio returned 4.05%. Key Outcomes - 2026 Meeting Schedule Approved: Unanimous approval (5-0) of the dates: February 18, May 27, August 26, and November 18, 2026. Meetings will be held on Wednesdays at 6 p.m. - Annual Report Approved: Unanimous approval (5-0) of the 2024 Annual Report to the governing body in its corrected format. - Permanent Fund Policy Review Scheduled: The board agreed to conduct a policy review and potential asset class adjustment (specifically regarding real estate and real assets) at the August 2026 meeting. - Portfolio Status Acknowledged: The board accepted the performance reports for both the Permanent Fund and Operating Fund, acknowledging the successful consolidation with GPA and the positive financial returns despite market volatility.

The Planning and Zoning Board convened for a virtual meeting to review multiple development applications, including zone map amendments, preliminary plats, and variances. The meeting featured the departure of long-serving Commissioner Rodosevich, the approval of several routine development items, and six postponements or withdrawals. During Public Comments, a future resident expressed strong support for a new YMCA and a petitioned for a Trader Joe's grocery store. The Board addressed staff recommendations for approval on most items, with one zone map amendment rejected after failing a consent vote. Consent Calendar - The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously upon motion and second without discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - Paul Lamend, a future resident of Rio Rancho, expressed definite support for the new YMCA location at Montezuma and Galahad, citing fondness for the organization and proximity to his future home. He also submitted a request for a new Trader Joe's grocery store at the corner of Montezuma Boulevard and Broadmore Boulevard to provide healthy and affordable food options with walkable accessibility. Discussion Items Postponements and Withdrawals - Item 4: Postponed to December 16, 2025. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). - Item 5: Withdrawn by the applicant. Roll call vote to approve withdrawal: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). - Item 9: Postponed to December 16, 2025. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). - Item 10: Postponed to December 16, 2025. Applicant Roger Tice stated they require the time to meet with neighborhood residents to determine the future alignment of the 'rim trail' on their master plan and address public concerns regarding the preliminary plat. - Item 12: Postponed to December 16, 2025. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 6: Zone Map Amendment (Plaza Rio Lot B) - Staff Presentation: Municipal Planner Ben Isaacs recommended approval to amend zoning from SU (Special Use) to allow multifamily townhomes as a permissive use. Staff proposed building height limits of 32 feet (2 stories) and a maximum density of 12 units per acre. - Applicant Presence: The applicant was not present. - Outcome: The motion to approve failed. Roll call vote resulted in 0 Yes, 6 No (Commissioners Hardesty, Richardson, Rodosevich, Gabbledon, Hankins, and Coffer all voted No). A one-time postponement option was discussed but not utilized. Item 7: Preliminary Plat Extension (Adalia Crossing) - Staff Presentation: Planner Michelle Castilla recommended approval for an extension due to current economic conditions. The subdivision creates 70 single-family residential lots. - Applicant Position: Howard Ballmer appeared, stating the property is under contract and intended to commence construction within one to two months of approval. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 8: Final Plat (Brommore Heights Unit 4) - Staff Presentation: Planner Brian Babiac recommended approval for a subdivision of 53 lots and 5 tracks on 14.45 acres. The plat was originally approved in 2023 with extensions in June 2024 and May 2025. - Applicant Position: Scooter Haynes appeared, confirming staff's thorough presentation and offering no additional comments. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 11: Variance (485 Sandstone Drive NE) - Staff Presentation: Planner Tamara Martinez recommended approval for a variance allowing a 3-foot encroachment into the 15-foot rear setback for an existing accessory dwelling unit (750 sq ft). The structure was built between 2014 and 2015 without permits, and staff found no adverse effect to surrounding properties. - Applicant Position: Agent Sam Sandoval appeared on behalf of Mark Martinez and offered no additional comments. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 13: Preliminary Plat and Subdivision Variance (Zuma Ranch) - Staff Presentation: Planner Ben Isaacs recommended approval for Phase 1 of Zuma Ranch (151 lots) and a variance replacing 5-foot utility easements with 10-foot street-facing easements. - Applicant Position: Justin Simonson appeared to answer questions regarding the master plan subdivision. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 14: Preliminary Plat - Staff Presentation: Presented with no specific details in the transcript other than the request for approval. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 15: Preliminary Plat (Loma Catatis 1A) - Staff Presentation: Planner Tim Dvorak recommended approval for 27 lots, noting Parks Division concerns regarding a proposed public park on Tract F due to topography. A condition of approval requires a detailed park plan demonstrating ADA compliance and usability. - Applicant Position: Brian Ottawa appeared, expressing agreement with the conditions of approval. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). Item 16: Zone Map Amendment (Vista Hills 1A, Lot 1A) - Staff Presentation: Municipal Planner Ben Isaacs recommended approval to change zoning from C1 to C2 for Catalyst LLC. The property had prior code enforcement violations regarding odor, debris, and lack of permits associated with a previous tenant (Incy Theory). The change is intended to allow the current applicant to resume operations. - Applicant Position: Garrett appeared, clarifying that the odor issues were linked to the previous tenant and expressing commitment to fixing problems. Josh Heiner also appeared virtually, expressing excitement to bring marketing services to the area and comply with city codes. - Outcome: Motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote: 6-0 (All present voted Yes). The Board clarified the odor complaint was related to a prior business, not Catalyst LLC. Key Outcomes - Postponements: Items 4, 9, 10, and 12 were postponed to the December 16, 2025 meeting. - Withdrawal: Item 5 was withdrawn. - Rejection: Item 6 (Zone Map Amendment for Plaza Rio Lot B) failed to pass (0 Yes, 6 No). - Approvals: Items 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were approved by unanimous roll call vote (6-0). - Commissioner Departure: Commissioner Rodosevich concluded his tenure after 7.5 years. The Board expressed gratitude for his service. - Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned following public comments.