[0:00] Body meeting to order.

[0:01] Councilor Tyler will lead us in

[0:03] the pledge. I pledge allegiance

[0:05] to the flag of the United

[0:07] States of America and to the

[0:09] Republic for which it stands.

[0:12] One nation under GOD,

[0:13] indivisible, with liberty and

[0:15] justice for all. Please remain

[0:19] standing. I'd like to take a

[0:21] moment to recognize the brave

[0:23] men and women from our law

[0:26] enforcement folks that are

[0:27] always out there protecting us,

[0:28] and are always putting their

[0:30] lives on the line. I also want

[0:32] to take a minute on the eve of

[0:35] the nine over 11 catastrophe,

[0:36] to thank and to try to remember

[0:38] all of the folks who lost their

[0:39] lives, including the brave

[0:41] firefighters who went into the

[0:48] nine over 11 towers. Thank you.

[0:56] You MAY be seated. All right.

[1:00] Take. Please. Silence all

[1:01] electronic devices while

[1:02] attending the governing body

[1:04] meeting. For the record, I will

[1:05] announce the names of the

[1:06] governing body members. When I

[1:08] say your name, please

[1:09] acknowledge your presence by

[1:11] saying present Councilor Dobson,

[1:13] present Council PRESIDENT,

[1:15] Councilor Tyler, present

[1:16] councilor man. Present,

[1:18] councilor, present and

[1:21] councilor. List present

[1:22] proclamations and awards of

[1:23] merit. We do not have any this

[1:26] evening. Public forum. Each

[1:27] comment will be limited to two

[1:29] minutes and no more than two

[1:30] hours in total will be allotted

[1:32] to the public forum. Comments.

[1:33] At any meeting, each speaker

[1:35] must state their name and

[1:36] address or Rio Rancho District.

[1:39] For the record, and I know

[1:41] we've got one, two, three.

[1:44] Looks like six people signed up.

[1:46] We're going to follow strict

[1:47] decorum during this public

[1:49] forum. What that means is we

[1:51] will not tolerate clapping,

[1:54] whistling, or any sort of other

[1:57] booing, sign waving or anything.

[1:59] If we can't, if we can't abide

[2:01] by that quorum, we will ask you

[2:06] to leave the chambers. First up,

[2:16] Grace Dukes. MISS Dukes.

[2:17] Mayor,

[2:19] my name is Grace Dukes, and I'm

[2:21] an Albuquerque resident. So

[2:24] what's going on here? A small

[2:28] town of almost 115,000 people.

[2:29] Which is the second largest

[2:31] city in the state, which is

[2:33] even more captured by

[2:34] bureaucracy than the city of

[2:37] Albuquerque. What? The logic

[2:39] isn't carrying in my head. As

[2:41] soon as the slightest level of

[2:44] scrutiny comes upon this body,

[2:46] it folds under the pressure.

[2:48] Good job. What a good way to

[2:51] run the second largest city in

[2:53] the state. It's like you took

[2:55] the Tarrant County, Texas,

[2:56] commissioners and cloned them

[2:59] and put them in a city council.

[3:00] Paul. MR. Mayor, you are the

[3:02] central figure in this Tarrant

[3:04] County clone for continuing to

[3:07] violate people's rights. They

[3:08] close polling places. Hurt you

[3:10] gavel when applause is given to

[3:12] opinions you you don't like

[3:14] because of decorum. This is not

[3:16] a mature way to run a city, and

[3:18] it is deeply unserious. I truly

[3:21] feel bad for the people of Rio

[3:22] Rancho for having to be

[3:23] burdened with this incompetent.

[3:26] Of a city council, mayor in

[3:27] government. I hope that they

[3:28] realize what they got

[3:30] themselves into and that they

[3:33] recall you, Paul, and replace

[3:35] you with the real mayor. Not a

[3:36] make believe mayor with the

[3:38] gavel you like to throw down.

[3:40] When people clap. Also, just so

[3:41] you know, none of us voted to

[3:43] have our Fourth Amendment

[3:46] rights violated for these flock.

[3:49] A lpr surveillance cameras, and

[3:52] we want them gone. Thank you.

[3:54] Thank you, MISS Dukes. Next up,

[4:06] Joaquin Montoya.

[4:06] Good evening,

[4:08] mayor and council members. My

[4:10] name is Joaquin Montoya. I'm

[4:12] speaking on behalf of New

[4:14] Mexico. While I am not a

[4:15] resident of Rio Rancho, I

[4:16] conduct business here and have

[4:18] family members here, so my

[4:21] concerns remain the same. You

[4:22] have described mass

[4:24] surveillance as an emotional

[4:26] issue. We've heard from both

[4:28] sides. So let me present

[4:29] something that is not emotional

[4:31] at all. It's a math block,

[4:34] markets its cameras at more

[4:36] than 93% accurate. But in

[4:39] Roseville County, California,

[4:40] police ran their own analysis

[4:45] of 1400 cameras and 71% of them

[4:47] came out wrong. That's seven

[4:48] out of ten alerts flagged.

[4:50] Innocent people, innocent

[4:52] people's vehicles as stolen or

[4:54] connected to a felony. Any

[4:56] local precedent check. Espanol

[4:57] in New Mexico, a 12 year old

[4:59] was placed in handcuffs after a

[5:01] flock camera misread a two for

[5:04] a seven. Later. A month later,

[5:06] a 17 year old in a different

[5:08] incident was held at gunpoint

[5:09] on his way home from school.

[5:11] The same technology, same error

[5:13] in Aurora, Colorado. A mom, a

[5:16] mom and children were forced to

[5:19] face lay down, forced to face

[5:22] late, lay down, face on the hot

[5:24] pavement. Sorry because flock

[5:25] cameras matched a Colorado

[5:27] plate to a stolen Montana

[5:30] motorcycle. Aurora paid 1.9

[5:32] million to settle that case in

[5:34] Ventura County. Fox owned

[5:36] systems secretly enabled a

[5:38] nationwide data sharing setting

[5:40] that is. Sheriff's office

[5:42] turned off without the agency's

[5:45] knowledge, resulting in 34,000

[5:47] unauthorized searches of local

[5:49] plate data, including 299

[5:52] searches explicitly citing

[5:53] immigration enforcement, a

[5:55] class action lawsuit followed.

[5:57] Based off of unpublished data,

[5:58] 20 billion plate reads per

[6:01] month. Nationally, there are

[6:04] 93% accuracy, which is a 7%

[6:07] error that equates to 1.4

[6:10] billion misreads. Most didn't

[6:13] result in stops, but some do.

[6:15] Every. Every stop is a lawsuit

[6:17] waiting to happen. Rio Rancho

[6:19] prides itself as a responsible

[6:22] and fiscal governance. This

[6:23] technology demonstrated

[6:26] financial liability, accuracy,

[6:28] failures, data sharing failures

[6:29] all documented, not theoretical.

[6:30] MISTER Montoya, are you about

[6:33] done? Your two minutes are up.

[6:36] Thank you. Next up, Ronald, and

[6:37] I'm probably going to say this

[6:42] wrong. Birkeland, I.

[6:43] Council.

[6:45] It's glad. I'm glad to be back.

[6:47] I just want to say. Anything I

[6:49] ever say to you guys is not

[6:50] meant to be a personal attack,

[6:52] as I have a great deal of

[6:53] respect for what you're doing

[6:55] because you don't have to do it

[6:56] right. With that being said, I

[6:58] will say that I think it's

[7:00] ironic that we have the Pledge

[7:02] of Allegiance in in the docket

[7:04] here. While we continue to

[7:05] violate the Fourth Amendment

[7:07] rights of everybody in the room

[7:12] and in Rio Rancho. I do know,

[7:16] sir, that you're in a unique

[7:17] position to where the flock

[7:19] cameras probably worked and

[7:21] very well before you took the

[7:23] seat here. And they probably

[7:25] are a very good tool in

[7:26] combating crime. However,

[7:29] that's not really a fair trade

[7:31] off for the violation of

[7:33] everybody's rights, and I hope

[7:34] that you guys can consider that

[7:37] deeply when you go home tonight.

[7:38] I do know that our police

[7:40] department is fantastic. I was

[7:42] given a good conversation by a

[7:45] captain here who is in in

[7:46] charge of the, I guess the

[7:49] traffic in Rio Rancho. And he

[7:50] seems to be very confident.

[7:54] They have a good like hold on

[7:56] the on the police officers and

[7:58] any discrepancies they might

[8:00] violate, I guess, within the

[8:03] city. But still, that doesn't

[8:04] mean we should violate

[8:06] everybody's rights. Plain and

[8:08] simple. You know, I hold the

[8:09] background of everything that

[8:11] you guys have done in your

[8:12] careers just a little bit.

[8:13] Maybe not architecture, sir,

[8:16] but I've done a lot of things.

[8:18] And I know deep down inside

[8:20] it's not right. And it's got to

[8:22] change. I appreciate your time.

[8:24] I can't stay any longer. I have

[8:25] to go. I have other obligations.

[8:26] Thank you.

[8:28] Thank you. Next up,

[8:38] Casey Robinson.

[8:38] Good evening,

[8:40] MR. Mayor. And members of the

[8:43] governing body. I think it's no

[8:45] surprise we all know that

[8:46] politically, most of us don't

[8:50] agree with me and vice versa. I

[8:51] want to say this first, though,

[8:54] just so you know, put this out

[8:55] there. We know I'm a member of

[8:56] district two. I'm not involved

[8:58] with this organization. Not

[8:59] that I disagree with them, but

[9:00] I'm going to talk about some

[9:02] real world and how it affects

[9:05] us here in Rio Rancho and the

[9:07] things that we all care about.

[9:09] And maybe shock you with a

[9:11] quote we have on the far left,

[9:12] because I know most of you were

[9:14] kind of shocked when you heard

[9:15] that. I'm actually don't

[9:16] consider myself a Democrat

[9:18] because I find them too far to

[9:19] the right. There's a quote we

[9:21] use that says it's further left.

[9:23] You go, you get your guns back.

[9:25] So let me ask you, how many of

[9:26] you go to the gun range? Don't

[9:29] think flock sees that I'm a Jew

[9:31] whose family comes from from

[9:33] Eastern Europe. First thing

[9:34] they did was took our

[9:36] information and kept it on

[9:38] files. And it wasn't done by

[9:40] the Nazis. It was stuff that

[9:41] was done before the Nazis took

[9:43] power, and it was used when

[9:45] they were. Now, do I expect

[9:46] that to happen here in the us?

[9:48] No, but there's also been a lot

[9:49] of things that have happened

[9:51] here in the last 20 years that

[9:52] I've never expected to happen.

[9:54] And I think we have a great

[9:56] police force here is absolutely

[9:57] shocking for somebody of my

[9:58] political leaning to say, and I

[10:00] absolutely love our chief. That

[10:01] said, let's talk about what

[10:04] else can really happen. Go to a

[10:07] cancer treatment center. It

[10:08] gets found now, is the

[10:10] government going to use that?

[10:11] No, but this is a private

[10:14] company. We know how scrupulous

[10:16] lots of these large private

[10:18] companies truly are. And they

[10:19] tell me that they won't sell

[10:21] off their information or not

[10:22] care about putting money into

[10:23] data protection and a data

[10:24] breach. And your health

[10:25] insurance company finds out

[10:27] that finds certain information,

[10:29] or are you trying get different

[10:30] level of insurance? And next

[10:33] your rates go up. These are

[10:35] real things to pay attention to.

[10:37] There is a reason we have this,

[10:39] and we are talking about safety.

[10:41] And so I'll remind you with

[10:43] this little quote, those who

[10:45] would give up essential liberty

[10:47] to purchase a little temporary

[10:49] safety deserve neither liberty

[10:50] nor safety. And that was

[10:51] Benjamin Franklin.

[10:52] Thank you,

[10:53] MR. Robinson. Next up, Corinne

[11:10] Rios.

[11:11] Good evening. My name is

[11:13] Corinne Rios. I live here in

[11:14] Rio Rancho, and most of you

[11:16] know me already. I'm here

[11:18] tonight to ask one simple

[11:21] question. Where is our money?

[11:24] Every year, every JULY 1st

[11:26] since 2020, Rio Rancho water

[11:28] rates have increased. And every

[11:30] year the city failed to

[11:32] properly prorate bills that

[11:35] crossed that JULY 1st rate

[11:37] increase. The city has

[11:39] acknowledged the air. The city

[11:41] has acknowledged residents were

[11:43] overcharged and we were told we

[11:45] would get our money back. It

[11:47] has now been a year since I

[11:50] first alerted Steve Gallegos,

[11:52] the city manager knows the

[11:55] deputy city manager knows,

[11:57] mayor Weimer knows, and I'm

[11:59] hoping that the members of this

[12:02] governing body know. So I'm

[12:04] here asking, when will the

[12:05] residents of Rio Rancho get

[12:12] their money back?

[12:13] This is

[12:15] public forum for you to comment.

[12:17] We do not have a back and forth

[12:17] conversation.

[12:18] I know the rules,

[12:19] MR. Mayor, and I'm going to

[12:21] stand here for my full two

[12:23] minutes with the question, when

[12:42] will we get our money back?

[13:15] Thank you very much.

[13:15] Thank you,

[13:17] MISS Rios. Next up, Michael

[13:29] Farrell.

[13:30] I'm going to use my

[13:33] two minutes, guys. So, mayor,

[13:34] members of the governing body,

[13:37] thank you for this generous two

[13:39] minutes you've granted me to

[13:40] exercise my First Amendment

[13:43] right and to address my the

[13:45] government. Mayor Weimer likes

[13:48] to talk and tell us about this

[13:50] silent majority. Does anybody

[13:53] actually seen them at this

[13:54] point? I think a lot of us

[13:57] would really like to meet the

[13:59] Flockers. Here's what I find

[14:02] interesting. Just last DECEMBER,

[14:05] the city made Ipra reform a

[14:08] legislative priority. Just

[14:09] worried about privacy was a

[14:11] huge concern. We heard about

[14:12] body camera footage, people's

[14:15] homes, commercial data brokers,

[14:16] records being resold and

[14:18] personal information being

[14:19] misused. We heard all about

[14:22] that. You guys told us very

[14:24] touching. Concern for our

[14:26] privacy. But for the eight for

[14:28] probably the last 8 to 10 years,

[14:30] the city has been collecting

[14:32] license plates, recording where

[14:34] vehicles are seen, building

[14:36] searchable databases and

[14:38] expanding into Axon and Fuzes

[14:40] with hundreds of camera feeds

[14:43] and ai enabled streams. And

[14:45] suddenly privacy gets real

[14:48] quiet again, almost as quiet as

[14:49] that silent majority that you

[14:52] talk about when we ask for your

[14:54] information. Private sacred

[14:56] privacy, sacred. When you

[14:58] collect our information, it's

[15:01] public safety. How convenient.

[15:03] You can't have it both ways. I

[15:04] want to be clear. This isn't

[15:06] about anti-police. We know that

[15:08] this works in crime. We know

[15:10] that this this follows our

[15:12] travel. I was reminded today

[15:13] about how Albertsons takes all

[15:15] of your information. I don't

[15:16] care if they take my

[15:17] information. I'm not worried

[15:19] about them taking my money. I'm

[15:20] worried about knowing where I'm

[15:21] traveling, what we're doing.

[15:23] Like these other people said,

[15:24] it builds up. It's a dragnet.

[15:26] And when, when, when are we

[15:27] going to finally realize that

[15:29] that's what's being created

[15:32] here? It's an unwarranted

[15:35] dragnet. And Weimer, if that

[15:36] silent majority really supports

[15:38] all of this, bring them down

[15:39] here. We'd like to hear from

[15:41] them. We'd all love to finally

[15:45] meet the Flockers.

[15:47] Thank you.

[15:48] Do anybody else signed up for a

[15:50] public forum, MISS Davis?

[15:50] No,

[15:51] sir, we do not.

[15:52] All right. Then

[15:55] we will move on to comments by

[15:57] counselors. Do any comments by

[16:01] counselors? MR. Mayor,

[16:02] counselor Tyler.

[16:04] You had. I

[16:06] just want to commend the police

[16:07] department. We had unfortunate

[16:11] incidents over in my area where

[16:12] three businesses were

[16:15] burglarized and within 24 hours,

[16:17] 40 hours, I guess maybe what

[16:21] was it, 30, 24 hours? They were

[16:23] able to catch the offender who

[16:25] broke into all three businesses.

[16:27] So I want to commend them on a

[16:28] job well done. And thank you

[16:30] for using technology to solve

[16:31] that crime. I appreciate it,

[16:34] thank you.

[16:35] Thank you, MR.

[16:37] Taylor. Anything further from

[16:40] council? MR. Counselor? List?

[16:44] MR. Mayor, I just wanted to.

[16:46] Just put out there that I know

[16:47] that when we were here before,

[16:48] right at the start of the

[16:50] school, there was a lot of

[16:53] concerns in the zenith 528 area

[16:54] about congestion and traffic. I

[16:56] do believe that now that people

[16:57] are back in routine, I think

[16:59] some things have naturally

[17:00] calmed down. I also think that

[17:02] one of the educational entities

[17:03] has made some adjustments, and

[17:05] that has also helped. I just

[17:07] want to let everybody know that

[17:08] is concerned about that, that

[17:09] this is an ongoing process and

[17:11] that we are still working

[17:12] towards a long term resolution.

[17:15] So thank you.

[17:15] Thank you.

[17:20] Counselor. Anything further?

[17:21] Hearing none, we'll move on to

[17:23] the consent calendar. MISS

[17:24] Davis, I noticed a scrivener's

[17:26] error in the work session

[17:27] minutes. Will you please update

[17:29] the minutes to reflect my name

[17:30] as Mayor Weimer instead of

[17:32] Councilor Weimer? I believe the

[17:33] rest of the.

[17:34] Yes, sir. And I

[17:36] will do my best. This meeting

[17:38] to address you properly as well.

[17:39] Yes, I understand this is

[17:40] something we're all still

[17:43] getting used to. So can I get a

[17:44] motion on the consent calendar?

[17:46] Make a motion on the consent

[17:46] calendar.

[17:47] Second, I have a

[17:51] motion and a second, MISS Davis.

[17:53] Thank you, counselor Lentine.

[17:55] Yes.

[17:57] Counselor. Culbreth. Yes,

[17:58] counselor. Dobson.

[17:59] Yes,

[18:00] counselor.

[18:01] List. Yes, counselor.

[18:04] Man. Yes. And counselor. Tyler.

[18:05] Yes. Thank you. The consent

[18:07] calendar is approved.

[18:07] Thank you,

[18:10] MISS Davis. Moving on to boards,

[18:11] commissions and committee

[18:12] reports. We have none this

[18:14] evening. So next up, public

[18:16] hearings. Anyone with a

[18:17] pecuniary interest on an item

[18:18] under public hearings and

[18:19] wishing to address the

[18:21] governing body shall register

[18:23] with the City clerk. Each

[18:24] comment is limited, will be

[18:27] limited to three minutes. This

[18:28] hearing will be handled in

[18:29] accordance with the Rules of

[18:31] Procedure. Section 3.4 and

[18:33] strict decorum will be

[18:36] maintained first. So the first

[18:38] item up De 23, which was

[18:42] postponed from JUNE 25th, 2026.

[18:46] The the. The JUNE 25th meeting

[18:47] is a site plan approval for

[18:49] Maverik gas station on the

[18:50] property, legally described as

[18:54] unit 17, block 131, lots 36

[18:56] through 40. Director Rincon.

[18:58] Good evening. Good evening, MR.

[18:59] Mayor and other members of the

[19:01] governing body. Director of

[19:03] Development Services. So item

[19:08] number eight is d 23, which as

[19:11] mayor just mentioned, was is a

[19:12] continuation of the public

[19:13] hearing that was duly noticed

[19:16] and started on the JUNE 25th,

[19:18] 2026 meeting. And this is a

[19:21] request for approval of a site

[19:24] plan for unit 17, block 31,

[19:26] lots 36 through 40 for a

[19:30] Maverick gas station. And so

[19:32] this site plan would encompass

[19:35] five lots and is would be

[19:37] located on the northwest corner

[19:39] of New Mexico. 528 and Obregon

[19:41] with access points off of

[19:45] Monterey. And so I'm going to

[19:49] briefly have up on the screen

[19:53] the the new site plan. So as I

[19:54] mentioned at the start of this

[19:55] presentation, this item was

[19:57] noticed and started at a public

[19:58] hearing on JUNE 25th. The

[20:01] governing body at that meeting

[20:02] requested that the applicant

[20:04] reach out to the New Mexico dot

[20:05] or Department of Transportation

[20:07] and to see about the

[20:08] feasibility of an access point

[20:11] off of New Mexico Highway 528.

[20:13] The updated site plan with a

[20:17] write in from nm 528 is the

[20:19] result of that request. And so.

[20:20] And I'll get back to the site

[20:22] plan a little bit further in my

[20:23] presentation as well. But I

[20:25] just wanted to highlight that,

[20:27] that the the applicant did come

[20:32] back with some updates. So the

[20:34] following that I have is my

[20:37] presentation from the meeting

[20:38] on the 25th. I'm going to go

[20:40] through it really quickly. I

[20:42] had 26 slides, just as a kind

[20:45] of just so that, you know, I'm

[20:46] going to go through them really

[20:48] fast though, but I have

[20:49] everything. So if there's any

[20:50] follow up questions, we can

[20:52] always come back to any of

[20:53] these slides and, and go into

[20:55] further detail as we're going.

[20:57] So the zoning for this is

[20:59] covered under ordinance number

[21:02] 34, enactment number 0734. And

[21:04] so it does talk about needing a

[21:06] site plan approved and reviewed

[21:08] by the governing body. It talks

[21:10] about what uses are permitted

[21:11] on the property, which points

[21:15] back to our c one uses our c

[21:16] one uses do have as a

[21:18] permissive use a gas station.

[21:20] So this is a use that would be

[21:22] allowed on the property. And so

[21:25] when we are talking about

[21:29] retail uses see that that was

[21:31] just a couple extra slides on

[21:35] retail uses. Liquor license is

[21:38] a separate process. So if this

[21:40] gas station in the future would

[21:42] decide to go forward with that,

[21:44] there would be additional

[21:46] regulations and public hearings

[21:47] that would need to be heard.

[21:49] There was a site plan approved

[21:53] back in 2007 that did show

[21:55] access points off of one access

[21:57] point off of Obregon. Other

[21:59] access points off of Monterey,

[22:01] and then an access point also

[22:04] off of New Mexico. 528 so again,

[22:07] from that original hearing date

[22:10] on the 25th, the applicant went

[22:12] back to dot to try to work

[22:14] forward or work towards getting

[22:18] an access point from nm 528

[22:20] here's another part of that

[22:24] site plan from 2007. So

[22:27] originally notifications went

[22:34] out at per chapter 150.03.

[22:37] When we postpone an item, we

[22:39] postpone to a date certain. So

[22:41] everybody that knew of and was

[22:44] noticed of the meeting in JUNE,

[22:45] if they were to look at the

[22:47] meeting minutes for that JUNE

[22:48] meeting would know that the

[22:49] item was postponed to tonight's

[22:51] meeting. So we don't really

[22:53] notice because we postpone to a

[22:56] date certain. And so these were

[22:58] the original notifications that

[22:59] went out. These were all part

[23:03] of the original presentation.

[23:06] And then what I have here is a

[23:08] screen shot of all of the items

[23:10] that we look at for site plans

[23:14] for special use zones. And then

[23:17] for proposed site plans, just

[23:18] kind of going through things

[23:20] that we look at. So we look at

[23:22] is there a scale and a north

[23:25] arrow? Are the lot boundaries

[23:27] listed out? Where are the

[23:29] existing right of ways and

[23:33] easements? Then we go over is

[23:35] there what is the existing

[23:36] utilities? What are the plans

[23:40] for utilities in the area?

[23:44] Parking setbacks again,

[23:47] circulation. And so the

[23:49] circulation changes with the

[23:50] updated plan because there will

[23:53] now be an additional access

[23:55] point. So on this specific

[23:56] image that we're looking at,

[23:58] that access would connect to

[24:01] that bottom right hand, like

[24:03] football shape that I have

[24:06] there. A couple other things

[24:07] that we look at would include

[24:12] landscape buffers, elevations.

[24:21] Building heights. We look at

[24:24] the preliminary drainage. We

[24:26] look at the characteristics of

[24:30] the surrounding properties.

[24:32] Again just a quick one from

[24:41] site plan from 2007. Okay. And.

[24:43] So I breezed through that. But

[24:45] again, we can get we can go

[24:47] back to any of those that

[24:48] there's any questions, but I

[24:49] just don't want to spend too

[24:51] much time on something I've

[24:52] already presented before. But

[24:54] again, I'm bringing back the

[24:56] new updated site plan that is

[24:58] showing that right in off of

[25:00] New Mexico. 528 so right now,

[25:03] there wouldn't be a right out

[25:05] back onto. 528 we can only go

[25:12] from 528 to the site itself.

[25:14] And so then I do have actually

[25:16] let me go back really quick. So

[25:18] the applicant did hold a

[25:20] community meeting last week and

[25:22] a couple of things that are in

[25:23] your agenda briefing memorandum

[25:26] that were added today in public

[25:27] comment, along with public

[25:29] comments from residents, were

[25:31] also some meeting notes. So

[25:33] some of the questions that they

[25:34] answered. So some of the

[25:35] questions themselves. And then

[25:37] the responses from the

[25:38] applicants. So those are added

[25:40] in. But the applicant can go

[25:41] into further detail. If there's

[25:43] questions about that public

[25:45] meeting. And with that I will

[25:46] stand for any questions. So

[25:49] staff did review. We do

[25:50] recommend approval and I have

[25:52] the conditions and findings of

[25:57] fact for d 23 up on the screen.

[25:58] There's a couple of them.

[25:59] They're also included in your

[26:02] agenda briefing memorandum. And

[26:04] I will stand for any questions.

[26:06] Thank you. Director Cohen can I

[26:09] get a motion.

[26:10] Motion motion to

[26:12] approve d 23.

[26:13] Second, have a

[26:15] motion. And a second is the

[26:17] applicant here. And does the

[26:25] applicant wish to speak.

[26:25] Hello.

[26:27] Thank you for volunteering your

[26:29] time to hear our little case

[26:31] for our future gas station. And

[26:33] my name is Richard Pigott with

[26:34] Maverick. We're located at 185

[26:35] South State Street, Salt Lake

[26:37] City, Utah. I also have with me

[26:39] Brian Herron with Galloway

[26:40] Engineering. They were the ones

[26:42] that did our traffic study

[26:43] based on our neighborhood

[26:44] meeting. The biggest concerns,

[26:46] of course, is traffic accesses

[26:48] and things of that nature. So

[26:50] Brian with me as well, so that

[26:51] he could answer questions

[26:52] directly concerning traffic

[26:54] concerns. He's a little bit

[26:56] more educated in that field

[26:57] than I am, so I'm glad I

[26:59] brought him with me. So open to

[27:00] any questions you have about

[27:01] the neighborhood meeting. I can

[27:03] address those. If it's a

[27:04] traffic concern, I'll have

[27:05] Brian answer those questions

[27:07] for me.

[27:09] Okay. Hang tight. We

[27:10] MAY ask you for to come back up

[27:13] for more questions. All right.

[27:16] I have three people signed up

[27:19] to speak. So as I said prior to

[27:20] this, we will you'll have three

[27:22] minutes to speak. First up,

[27:36] Kristine Eisenberg.

[27:36] Good

[27:38] afternoon. My name is Christine

[27:39] Eisenberg. I'm part of the

[27:41] neighborhood association that

[27:43] is located in district six.

[27:45] That's a Chamisa Estates

[27:47] Neighborhood association. I

[27:49] don't know if you can see me

[27:51] over this. This podium. I'm

[27:54] kind of small, but I have a big

[27:55] voice. And one of the things

[27:57] that I noticed is that the

[27:58] zoning and development code

[28:00] requires that all persons that

[28:03] are affected by the build be

[28:04] notified. And while the six

[28:06] homes directly in front of the

[28:08] build have been notified, all

[28:10] of the remaining homes on

[28:12] Monterey were not. And the

[28:13] reason that they will be

[28:16] affected is. If you noticed on

[28:18] the site plan, the developer

[28:20] kept telling us there is no way

[28:23] for people to turn right out of

[28:25] Monterey, but in fact, they can

[28:27] turn right. So 850 cars are

[28:29] projected to go through that

[28:31] gas station and out through

[28:32] Monterey, and they have a

[28:34] choice of turning left or right.

[28:36] The reason it is dangerous to

[28:39] turn right is this neighborhood

[28:41] is very rural. We use it to

[28:44] walk on any evening, any

[28:45] morning. If you take the time

[28:47] to go out there, you'll see

[28:49] neighbors walking their dogs,

[28:50] children walking to school,

[28:52] children walking back from

[28:56] school. You will see people

[28:58] riding bikes, little dirt bikes,

[29:00] all kinds of different activity

[29:03] on the road and adding 850 cars

[29:06] to that will be a detriment to

[29:09] everybody's safety.

[29:10] Additionally, the developer

[29:12] told us that during the traffic

[29:13] study, there were four cars

[29:16] that they noted during a so

[29:18] many hour period, so that

[29:20] didn't sound true to us because

[29:21] we live there and we see the

[29:24] cars that come in and out. I've

[29:25] given you a traffic study that

[29:27] we did ourselves. I sat out

[29:29] there and tallied cars two

[29:31] different days. One day with

[29:33] school in session, one day

[29:34] without school in session. On

[29:36] the day that school was in

[29:40] session, we had 586 cars go

[29:42] down. Obregon. And then on the

[29:44] day that school wasn't in

[29:46] session, we had 219 cars go

[29:49] down. Obregon from 7:00 to 930

[29:52] each day. In order to prove

[29:54] that I really was out there, I

[29:56] have the time stamped pictures

[29:58] about every 15 or 20 minutes so

[30:00] that you can see I really was

[30:02] out there really with my little

[30:03] tally marks, and there's even a

[30:04] cute little picture of me

[30:06] sitting out there on the road.

[30:07] By the way, it's really

[30:09] dangerous out there, I noticed

[30:11] six different cars come and do

[30:12] u-turns on Obregon because they

[30:14] were going the wrong way. On

[30:18] 528, I saw people trying to

[30:20] pass the line, going out of

[30:22] Obregon. Let's say there's 20

[30:24] cars lined up. The 20th car

[30:25] decides, I'm not going to wait

[30:28] in line. They cut going,

[30:29] heading to the traffic lane

[30:31] that's coming in the opposite

[30:32] direction. You guys need to do

[30:33] something about that because

[30:37] that's not safe anyway. Also, I

[30:42] wanted to note that. I

[30:44] requested an Ipra to look at

[30:46] the amount of accidents between

[30:50] Kim and 528, and Obregon and

[30:52] 528, and there were 20

[30:54] accidents from JANUARY 1st to

[30:56] date. Some of them included

[30:57] several cars. Most of them were

[30:59] two car accidents. Thank you

[31:01] for listening. We want a safe

[31:04] neighborhood. We value our

[31:06] neighbors and our time that we

[31:07] spend outside recreating. And

[31:09] that's why we bought homes in

[31:10] that area. And we hope you

[31:12] consider that. Also, please

[31:14] consider that the developer was

[31:16] less than honest with us when

[31:19] we met with him. In our ability

[31:20] to try and fix all of this.

[31:21] Thank you.

[31:22] Next up, Thomas

[31:39] Krapyak. Good evening mayor.

[31:40] City Council members.

[31:41] City

[31:41] manager.

[31:43] My name is Thomas and

[31:44] I'm a retired lieutenant with

[31:45] the Albuquerque Fire Department.

[31:47] And I am very concerned about

[31:49] safety in this area. My main

[31:51] concern is resident safety and

[31:52] traffic safety. I'm asking you

[31:54] to deny this maverick maverick

[31:55] site plan, not simply place

[31:58] more conditions on it. Before

[31:59] Maverick was proposed, Rio

[32:00] Rancho police had already

[32:01] identified safety concerns on

[32:04] New Mexico. 528 and Obregon in

[32:06] 2024. The Police traffic

[32:08] division asked Nmdot to

[32:09] consider northbound and

[32:10] southbound turning lanes at

[32:12] this intersection, specifically

[32:14] to avoid crashes. Now, Maverick

[32:16] proposes a high traffic fuel

[32:17] station and a convenience store

[32:20] at that same intersection. New

[32:21] Mexico Department of

[32:22] Transportation has stated that

[32:24] it will not grant access to New

[32:26] Mexico. 528 at this location,

[32:30] so what does that traffic go?

[32:31] Maverick's own site drawings

[32:32] make that answer easy. The

[32:34] project's internal circulation

[32:35] connects directly to Monterey

[32:38] Road, a residential street,

[32:39] while also relying on Obregon

[32:41] for access. Monterey and

[32:42] Obregon already carry

[32:43] concentrated morning and

[32:44] afternoon traffic associated

[32:46] with Enchanted Hills Elementary

[32:47] School. Children also walk

[32:49] these streets to and from

[32:51] school, some with parents, some

[32:55] independently. This proposal

[32:57] will add customer vehicles,

[32:58] turning movements, delivery,

[32:59] traffic and commercial

[33:00] circulation through these same

[33:02] streets. Developers also

[33:04] acknowledged weaving concerns.

[33:05] Because Obregon Access is so

[33:07] close to New Mexico. 528 while

[33:09] proposing no dedicated right

[33:11] turn lane to this site, there

[33:12] is also an environmental

[33:13] concern already for record with

[33:15] the city clerk, an

[33:16] environmental engineer has

[33:17] submitted and written concerns

[33:18] about drainage toward the

[33:20] adjacent Arroyo de las Lomitas

[33:22] Negras and nearby residential

[33:25] ground walls that recommends

[33:26] evaluating the local water

[33:27] table before assuming those

[33:29] drinking water sources are

[33:31] protected. There is also

[33:32] environmental concern. Why

[33:33] should these questions be

[33:35] answered after approval instead

[33:36] of before it? When a project

[33:37] depends on an already

[33:39] concerning intersection cannot

[33:41] access New Mexico 528 directly

[33:43] shifts commercial traffic onto

[33:45] streets used by school children

[33:46] and creates acknowledged

[33:48] weaving concerns and leaves

[33:49] important drainage and

[33:50] groundwater questions

[33:52] unanswered. Approval is not the

[33:54] cause. The cautious decision

[33:55] here. Denial is, and we'd

[33:56] really appreciate if the

[33:58] council members would listen to

[33:59] their residents of this

[34:01] community. Thank you.

[34:01] Thank you,

[34:04] MR. Kubiak. Next up, Kim

[34:18] Gonzalez.

[34:19] Good evening.

[34:19] Mayor

[34:21] and council members. My name is

[34:23] Kim Gonzalez. I reside at 1201

[34:26] Monterey Road, a home that is

[34:27] directly across from the

[34:29] proposed Maverick Gas Station.

[34:31] I am here tonight to

[34:32] respectfully ask you to deny

[34:34] this site approval, because I

[34:35] believe its location creates

[34:37] serious traffic and safety

[34:39] concerns for our neighborhood.

[34:40] The gas station is being

[34:41] proposed at the major

[34:43] intersection of 528 and Obregon,

[34:45] which is already a busy road

[34:46] because of the elementary

[34:49] school that is half mile away.

[34:50] However, our concern is that

[34:52] the traffic will actually be

[34:55] going onto Monterey, a

[34:57] residential road. That

[34:58] distinction is extremely

[35:00] important because the developer

[35:02] is proposing to put a high

[35:03] volume commercial traffic

[35:05] generator next to that

[35:07] residential road, and he has

[35:08] indicated that it will likely

[35:12] send over 850 vehicles onto it

[35:14] every day. I don't believe we

[35:16] should dismiss that simply

[35:17] because the gas station is

[35:20] located at a major intersection.

[35:21] A tremendous amount of traffic

[35:22] will come into our neighborhood

[35:25] on Monterey, where people

[35:27] regularly walk, exercise, and

[35:28] enjoy our neighborhood because

[35:30] it is not a high traffic

[35:32] roadway. That is why the

[35:34] entrance exit location matters

[35:36] just as much as the location of

[35:38] the gas station itself. I

[35:39] respectfully ask the council to

[35:41] look at this from the

[35:42] perspective of the residents

[35:44] who actually live on Monterey

[35:47] Road. Personally, as I said,

[35:49] our house is at the corner of

[35:53] Monterey and Obregon with 850

[35:54] vehicles entering and exiting

[35:57] the gas station each day, we

[35:59] will need to find gaps in

[36:01] traffic to safely enter or

[36:04] leave our driveway. The the

[36:05] traffic stop sign at the corner

[36:07] will likely create a backup of

[36:09] vehicles waiting to get onto

[36:11] Obregon. Further blocking our

[36:13] driveway and making access to

[36:15] our home difficult and possibly

[36:17] dangerous. This is not just

[36:19] about traffic, it directly

[36:22] affects our ability to safely

[36:25] get in and out of our own home.

[36:28] So I ask you, if this was your

[36:30] family's home, would you

[36:33] consider this traffic increase

[36:35] acceptable? I believe the

[36:37] answer would be no. Thank you

[36:38] for your time.

[36:39] Thank you, MISS

[36:43] Gonzalez. MISS Davis, anyone

[36:45] else signed up to speak?

[36:45] No,

[36:46] sir. There is not.

[36:47] All right.

[36:49] Then we will close the public

[36:51] comment period of this item and

[36:55] move on to council comment,

[36:57] questions, comments. Concerns.

[37:00] MR. Mayor. Councilor. List.

[37:00] MR.

[37:02] Mayor. Okay, let me begin by

[37:03] first saying thank you so much

[37:06] to Maverick for following up

[37:08] and hearing our request and

[37:09] meeting with the community. I

[37:11] think that was an important

[37:13] step. I also want to say a

[37:16] thank you to Director Rincon

[37:17] and her team for continuing to

[37:19] follow through with this and to

[37:23] to bring it back to today. I'm

[37:25] not entirely sure where to

[37:26] start, other than I want

[37:28] everyone who sent in emails and

[37:29] comments. We hear you. We

[37:31] appreciate you, I hear you, I

[37:34] appreciate you, I think that we

[37:36] need to look at a couple of

[37:39] things, and I'm not sure if MR.

[37:40] Pickard can answer my question

[37:48] or not.

[37:49] I'll do my best.

[37:50] Okay.

[37:53] And please note, I get that you

[37:54] represent an entity, but I. But

[37:56] I do have some questions. Again,

[37:57] thank you for for meeting with

[37:58] the community that wasn't asked.

[38:00] And I do believe that some of

[38:02] the things that were initially

[38:03] brought were accommodations

[38:05] that Maverick was able to make,

[38:07] whether it was lighting or

[38:08] walls or the foliage or some of

[38:10] the things. So thank you for

[38:12] that. I do have a question,

[38:14] though. We met on JUNE 25th. Do

[38:16] you know when you guys then

[38:17] turned around and reached back

[38:19] out to the dot?

[38:20] I think it was.

[38:22] The next day is when we got the

[38:25] first rejection from Margaret.

[38:26] I could talk to have Brian

[38:28] address that a little bit more

[38:29] clear. But yeah, we reached out

[38:31] like the second. By the time i

[38:33] got home, I had an email

[38:34] rejection from them. By the

[38:36] time I landed. So and then we

[38:38] continued to push over the

[38:39] course of the last two months,

[38:41] I didn't get a blessing for

[38:44] that right turn pocket until

[38:45] probably about two weeks ago,

[38:47] three weeks ago. But again, I

[38:48] think Brian could answer that

[38:49] question a little bit more

[38:51] clearly. And I think it's in a

[38:52] memo that was also presented to

[38:54] you as a commissioner as well.

[38:54] Right.

[38:55] I just have some notes

[38:57] here that reflect that the real

[38:58] conversations MAY not have

[38:59] started until mid AUGUST. So

[39:01] there was a gap, and I was just

[39:03] curious as to why, but you're,

[39:06] you're you're good. So I, I

[39:07] have to be honest, I'm really

[39:08] frustrated with the Department

[39:09] of Transportation in this

[39:11] entire situation, because I do

[39:12] know that some of their

[39:14] feedback were no additional

[39:16] turn ins. Then it was you could

[39:17] have both a right in or right

[39:19] out. Then it was no, you can

[39:21] only have the right in. And

[39:23] part of their argument is that.

[39:25] 528 in this stretch right now

[39:28] is problematic, as in the

[39:30] overgrown intersection, the

[39:32] zenith intersection and the

[39:33] intersection. And so I'm super

[39:35] frustrated with the dot for not

[39:36] saying, hey, let's take 90 days,

[39:37] six months, and let's put a

[39:39] time out. And we're going to

[39:40] put a focused energy on this

[39:42] strip of 528 and we're going to

[39:44] do our job for the residents of

[39:45] Rio Rancho. So I'm extremely

[39:46] disappointed in the Department

[39:47] of Transportation because right

[39:49] now I think they are the

[39:50] stronghold for a lot of these

[39:51] complications. However, with

[39:53] that said, ultimately the only

[39:54] thing that was granted was a

[39:56] right in which forces 100% of

[39:58] those vehicles out onto

[40:00] Monterey, which is in no way,

[40:02] shape or form acceptable. This

[40:04] is a private road. This does

[40:06] feed into a small space. This

[40:10] is front doors that this is not

[40:12] made for an additional 850 cars

[40:15] a day. I am extremely concerned

[40:19] about safety. The safety issues

[40:21] in this area. If we can look at

[40:25] our special use permit section

[40:28] 154.4 3a3f. It does talk about

[40:30] something that is very specific

[40:31] for us sitting up here to look

[40:33] at, and it's the proposed

[40:35] ingress, the egress, parking

[40:36] and circulation. And

[40:37] unfortunately, I do not feel

[40:39] that in any way, shape or form

[40:40] this meets the safety needs of

[40:43] the neighborhood. I very much

[40:45] appreciate the residents that

[40:47] took the time to sit out and

[40:48] dodge cars and play Frogger to

[40:50] to get these data points for us.

[40:52] I do want to say, just from

[40:54] personal experience, that that

[40:56] 586 after a long weekend is

[40:58] probably a low number. A lot of

[41:00] people took extended vacations,

[41:01] so that number is probably

[41:03] higher than what, what, what

[41:04] would have really happened if

[41:06] you would have had it on a

[41:07] traditional five day week, on

[41:09] maybe a Tuesday or Thursday,

[41:14] just my $0.02. So I. I don't

[41:15] really have a lot more to say

[41:17] other than I'm just really

[41:18] sorry, but I, I don't think

[41:19] this makes the safety

[41:21] requirements for our, our

[41:22] community. And I, I apologize,

[41:23] it has nothing to do with

[41:25] Maverick. It has nothing to do

[41:27] with it being a gas station. I

[41:28] think that the dot did you a

[41:32] disservice. And with that, I

[41:37] will take a pause.

[41:40] No, we are.

[41:41] There's strict decorum being

[41:43] held here. We are not going to

[41:45] clap. We're not going to be.

[41:46] There's a reason for that. If

[41:48] we get people in this room that

[41:49] are opposed and in favor, and

[41:51] they start booing and clapping,

[41:52] we can have a fight in here.

[41:54] We're not going to have this.

[41:55] We're going to act like adults

[41:57] in this room. Thank you,

[41:58] Councilor Tyler.

[41:58] I would have

[42:02] to agree with Councilor List. I,

[42:05] I think that New Mexico. 528

[42:07] and that that section of New

[42:11] Mexico. 528 is some concerns

[42:14] for public safety as far as

[42:16] traffic in right turns, left

[42:17] turns, I don't care which way

[42:18] you're turning, it's a pain

[42:19] down there going to Corrales

[42:22] you're going to get hit. I

[42:26] think I share the same issues

[42:29] as she does with Nmdot. They're

[42:31] horrible. And I'll say that

[42:33] because it depends on which

[42:34] entity you are or where you're

[42:36] at, because I can go and put

[42:38] five stoplights in a row or six

[42:40] stoplights in a row, which are

[42:42] against nmdot regulations,

[42:43] depending on who I am. But I

[42:45] can't have one stoplight that

[42:47] saves people's lives off of 528

[42:49] up by the armory, or 550 up by

[42:51] the armory. We can't get a

[42:53] stoplight on 528 over where

[42:55] it's needed. We can't get write

[42:56] ins and write outs to get

[42:58] businesses to come in. It's not

[43:00] the fact that the city of Rio

[43:01] Rancho doesn't want to do

[43:02] business, and doesn't want to

[43:03] encourage business. It's the

[43:05] fact that we don't want to

[43:06] endanger the residents, and

[43:07] Nmdot doesn't get off their

[43:08] butts and come down here and

[43:10] help us solve problems. And

[43:12] maybe in six months that'll

[43:13] change. But at the end of the

[43:15] day, I think that we really

[43:17] need to take a step back and

[43:18] get nmdot to Councilor Liz

[43:20] Point to do their job and come

[43:21] down here and help us get these

[43:23] businesses in place. So I have

[43:24] some concerns as well as she

[43:27] does, as well as she does with

[43:29] the safety 800 cars on a

[43:30] residential road is that's a

[43:32] lot. I wouldn't want that

[43:33] trapped in front of my house.

[43:34] That's just me personally, but

[43:37] whatever I yield for MR. Mayor.

[43:38] Thank you, Councilor Tyler.

[43:39] MR.

[43:41] Mayor.

[43:44] Councilor.

[43:45] So I think

[43:47] five of the seven of us were

[43:48] here before. This is Champion

[43:51] car wash discussion just on on

[43:53] repeat. And it's going to be

[43:55] any time for this three mile

[43:56] stretch here starting at

[43:58] northern up to where it gets

[44:00] busy again around Enchanted

[44:03] Hills area that, you know, the

[44:04] East Side's developed. The West

[44:05] side's not. You have certain

[44:07] people that anytime it wouldn't

[44:10] matter what's going in on that

[44:12] west side. If it was a dental

[44:13] office that moved two cars

[44:14] through an hour, they'd be at

[44:17] this meeting. Or if it was a

[44:18] gas station, they'd be at this

[44:21] meeting. I think that it's

[44:22] unfair. We're all going to

[44:23] probably have the same general

[44:26] remarks and discussions about

[44:28] Nmdot. I think that you were

[44:29] able to champion wasn't able to

[44:31] get what you guys were able to

[44:33] get with that right turn in,

[44:35] which I think is a great that

[44:36] that, you know, you're able to

[44:39] get that carved out. I don't

[44:44] think it's fair to you guys to

[44:46] suffer because in Nmdot is

[44:49] being ridiculous, intransigent

[44:52] on this issue. Therefore, I do

[44:53] support the project. I think

[44:54] the stipulation that we had or

[44:57] what we said in the last

[44:58] meeting, and we were pretty

[44:59] much in agreement on it, was,

[45:01] we need you to go back to Nmdot,

[45:03] try to push back as much as you

[45:05] can. It's my understanding from

[45:06] conversations that that was

[45:08] done with the help of the city.

[45:10] And so I appreciate Amy and

[45:11] whoever else made some phone

[45:12] calls and kind of pushed to be

[45:14] able to get that right in.

[45:16] That's really important.

[45:19] However, we do. 528 is, is

[45:20] going to be strategically

[45:21] important for our whole city.

[45:23] We need both the east side of

[45:25] 528 and the west side of 528 to

[45:27] develop out. And I realize that

[45:29] every time anything, any type

[45:30] of development comes on the

[45:33] west side of. 528. This will be

[45:34] the discussion that's had.

[45:36] However, we definitely need to

[45:38] start pushing. And by the way,

[45:39] putting in businesses will get

[45:40] infrastructure done. These

[45:42] roads will need to get paved,

[45:43] it'll need to get safer, and

[45:44] it'll push some of that. Now,

[45:46] the truth is, is that there's a

[45:48] lot of people that live out

[45:49] there. They don't want it to

[45:51] get paved. They don't want, you

[45:52] know, and that that's a

[45:53] personal choice. That's fine.

[45:55] But I think that if if we're

[45:56] going to live this close to a

[45:58] major thoroughfare, we need to

[45:59] understand the overall gr for

[46:02] the city. So to, to be the

[46:04] antithesis of Councilor Tyler's

[46:06] point a little bit for, for the

[46:08] whole of the city, I understand

[46:09] for the unfortunate situation

[46:11] for, you know, 5 to 10 houses

[46:12] that are going to be affected

[46:14] right there. I don't think

[46:15] there's very many people. I'd

[46:17] be shocked if it's more than 5%

[46:18] that are going to come onto

[46:19] Monterey and turn right.

[46:21] There'd be no reason to. You're

[46:22] going to go left and you're

[46:24] going to take the quickest way

[46:26] to get back onto 528 to get to

[46:27] where you're going. So I don't

[46:29] think that, you know, you guys

[46:30] going back to Nmdot, you guys

[46:32] doing the outreach to the, to

[46:33] the, to the community, to the

[46:35] residents is what we asked for.

[46:36] And so if we're going to deny,

[46:38] again, I don't think we have

[46:39] much grounds to stand on based

[46:40] on our previous conversations

[46:42] in the last meeting. So

[46:43] therefore, I do support the

[46:44] project. And I do appreciate,

[46:46] Amy, you guys, you know, going

[46:47] back again and helping out and

[46:48] working with Maverick and

[46:50] working with the state, even

[46:51] though, you know, there's not

[46:52] much to work there with. I

[46:53] appreciate that. And, you know,

[46:55] thank you guys for bringing

[46:56] this back forward tonight.

[46:58] That's all I have. MR. Mayor.

[47:00] Thank you councilor. MR. Mayor,

[47:00] councilor Culbreth.

[47:02] Thank you.

[47:03] I think it's important to be

[47:05] clear that the ask was not

[47:08] merely to have a conversation

[47:10] with Nmdot, but the ask was to

[47:12] get a specific outcome, which

[47:14] was the right in and right out.

[47:17] And so while I appreciate the

[47:19] effort, it's unfortunate that

[47:21] an mdoti actually think it's

[47:22] more unfortunate that they

[47:25] granted a right in without a

[47:27] right out because my concern as

[47:30] a driver is that a right in is

[47:33] going to potentially drive more

[47:34] vehicles, because you're right

[47:36] there on 528 you see the right

[47:38] in I'll go right in there and

[47:40] then realize that I can't get

[47:42] out and I'll have to go out

[47:43] onto that residential road. So

[47:45] I think they actually did you a

[47:46] disservice by granting the

[47:47] right in, in the absence of the

[47:50] right out. And so we have to

[47:53] weigh everything in a 360 view.

[47:57] I think we are held not by the

[47:59] emotion of how we feel about

[48:01] the project. I actually have

[48:05] zero concern around the the

[48:07] health component. I'm not

[48:10] worried necessarily about the

[48:12] tanks. If there were a couple

[48:14] of different pieces to this

[48:16] project. I'm not concerned

[48:18] about the gas station. Right.

[48:19] And that's actually not a

[48:21] concern that we are allowed to

[48:23] consider when we are

[48:26] considering this by our charter,

[48:28] what we are required to

[48:29] consider is what's brought

[48:31] before us when we're looking at

[48:33] the Soo district. And as

[48:34] Councilor Lewis pointed out,

[48:36] one of the things that we are

[48:39] to evaluate is the proposed

[48:41] ingress, egress, parking and

[48:42] circulation. And so

[48:44] unfortunately, I think for this

[48:45] project, it is not the use

[48:47] that's the issue. It's the

[48:49] ingress egress and the

[48:50] circulation that becomes an

[48:53] issue. And while it is not your

[48:57] fault that an ndot continues to

[48:58] fail, the citizens of Rio

[48:59] Rancho when it comes to New

[49:02] Mexico Highway 528, it is still

[49:04] our responsibility to take that

[49:05] into consideration. And so

[49:08] because of that, I find that

[49:11] this site plan still fails to

[49:14] meet the requirements. That

[49:15] would be necessary and

[49:18] satisfied for me to approve it.

[49:20] I would really actually like to

[49:22] approve this, but I think we

[49:23] find ourselves in a difficult

[49:25] situation, and I encourage the

[49:27] citizens of Rio Rancho to

[49:28] continue to voice your concerns

[49:31] about this and the issues that

[49:36] are in on 528. It is in our

[49:37] public record, so you can take

[49:40] a look at it on the the the

[49:42] components of the docket for

[49:46] today that in the memo, Nmdot

[49:49] identifies on 81426 that there

[49:51] is a concern and a need to

[49:53] review the 528 corridor, and

[49:55] that is fully necessary so that

[49:56] we can get the development that

[49:59] we need. And I think until we

[50:00] have that, we're going to be

[50:02] stuck in a very difficult

[50:03] situation. So thank you very

[50:04] much, MR. Mayor.

[50:04] Thank you,

[50:07] councilor Culbreath COUNCILMAN.

[50:11] MR. Mayor. I want to thank the

[50:13] three folks that that gave

[50:16] comment. They their comments

[50:17] were civil. They were well

[50:18] researched. They clearly put in

[50:21] a lot of time and effort to

[50:23] figure things out. And that's

[50:25] really useful. And so thank you

[50:27] for coming up and giving us

[50:28] that information so that we can

[50:31] make a decision here today. I

[50:32] do think, and I'll echo what

[50:34] has been shared today, that the

[50:35] Department of Transportation

[50:38] for the state has created a

[50:40] roadblock to economic

[50:41] development in our city. And

[50:44] that's not okay. And I hope

[50:45] that they hear that message

[50:48] tonight and that they can

[50:51] change things around. What

[50:53] we're supposed to do tonight is

[50:55] review and approve a site plan,

[50:56] right? We're not talking as has

[50:57] been shared already. We're not

[50:59] talking about whether a, a gas

[51:01] station is a good idea or not.

[51:02] I happen to think that it's a

[51:04] fantastic product. I think

[51:05] Maverick is a great product.

[51:07] I'd love to see a Maverick in

[51:10] Rio Rancho, but part of that

[51:11] review that we're supposed to

[51:14] do is determine ingress, egress,

[51:15] parking and circulation. And

[51:17] that's quite a broad review. I

[51:18] think that encompasses whether

[51:20] it whether the ingress and

[51:23] egress is reasonable. And in my

[51:24] mind, and I'm echoing again

[51:26] what's already been shared when

[51:27] you root, when you have when

[51:31] you root 100% of exit from a

[51:34] commercial development onto a

[51:37] residential road with front

[51:38] yard, front yards facing that

[51:40] road is just not reasonable.

[51:42] And I couldn't in good

[51:44] conscience vote in favor of it.

[51:46] If that was my home, it would

[51:49] be devastating to me. And so I

[51:52] think it's also it would be

[51:53] inconsistent with what we've

[51:55] done throughout the city. So

[51:56] anytime you have a road like

[51:58] this, that's that's essentially

[52:00] residential road, that's that

[52:02] commercial traffic is feeding

[52:04] onto the home. You're usually

[52:06] if there are residences on the

[52:07] other side of that road, it's

[52:09] usually a backyard or at least

[52:11] a side yard. And if and if

[52:13] those of you who are listening

[52:14] to, to my comment here can

[52:16] reflect on that, if you look

[52:17] around the city, that's you can

[52:18] say, that's that's right. You

[52:20] know, I can't I can't think of

[52:22] an example where we have front

[52:23] yards facing a road that's

[52:24] going to have this level of

[52:26] traffic, high volume traffic.

[52:28] And so that's where I stand. I

[52:29] hope that the Dot hears this

[52:31] message tonight and that there

[52:33] can be future discussions so

[52:35] that there can be a way to move

[52:37] forward on this project. But I

[52:40] yield. Thank you, COUNCILMAN.

[52:42] MR. Mayor, Councilor Dobson.

[52:43] So

[52:44] I have to echo everybody's

[52:45] concerns. So I'm not going to

[52:48] repeat them. But I just want to

[52:51] say that I really hope that we

[52:53] can find a way to work with you

[52:57] because I think we need a

[52:59] maverick here. And I want us to

[53:00] have a maverick here. I don't

[53:02] know that we can have a

[53:03] maverick at this location,

[53:05] because I'm also very concerned

[53:07] about I, I work in that area. I

[53:09] don't live there, but I take

[53:10] care of people that live there.

[53:12] And I know what it's like. And

[53:14] we don't want to put 500 cars

[53:16] on that road. I just can't do

[53:20] it. Thank you very much.

[53:20] Thank

[53:21] you, Councilor.

[53:22] Dobson,

[53:23] director, and I have a couple

[53:25] of clarification questions for.

[53:28] You.

[53:29] First, there was a

[53:31] discussion by MISS Eisenberg

[53:34] about notification. Can you

[53:35] describe the process and how

[53:37] it's determined who gets

[53:43] notified?

[53:44] MR. Mayor? Yes. So

[53:46] when we look at notifications,

[53:50] we use chapter 150.03. And so

[53:53] for site plans, the for

[53:54] notifications, we are required

[53:57] to notify adjacent properties.

[53:59] And when we are talking about

[54:02] adjacent properties, those are

[54:03] properties that are lying next

[54:05] to or bordering the subject

[54:06] property

[54:11] Site and so on. It's

[54:12] kind of hard to see on this map,

[54:15] but on the right hand side, the

[54:17] lots that are in the dark

[54:19] border are the lots that are

[54:21] the subject property. So the

[54:22] five lots that for the site

[54:26] plan and then the lots that are

[54:27] hatched around them are the

[54:30] lots that were notified. And

[54:33] again, those are by our code.

[54:35] The lots that are adjacent to

[54:38] the subject site.

[54:39] Thank you.

[54:40] And then can you bring up the

[54:44] site plan? MR. And I, this MAY

[54:46] be a subject that doesn't need

[54:49] to be discussed, but. MR.

[54:50] Mentioned something about

[54:51] there's not a dedicated right

[54:53] turn off of. 528 and I believe

[54:55] I saw one when I think it's

[54:57] shown there on the bottom of

[54:59] the screen. Is that accurate?

[55:03] So, MR. Mayor, yes. So from

[55:05] what the developer is going to

[55:06] build out, what they'll be

[55:08] required to build out would be

[55:10] a dedicated right turn lane

[55:12] from New Mexico. 528 onto

[55:14] Obregon. And then there would

[55:16] be additional turn lanes that

[55:18] they would need to build from

[55:21] Obregon back onto 528. And then

[55:23] with the updated site plan,

[55:24] there would be that additional

[55:26] right in off of 528. And I can,

[55:28] if you bear with me for a

[55:33] second. That would be this

[55:35] location here.

[55:36] So while we've

[55:40] got this up and looking at the

[55:44] right in only off of Obregon is,

[55:46] is the reason that that can't

[55:49] be a right in, right out due to

[55:50] the proximity of the

[55:52] intersection is. I just was

[55:53] curious if that ever got that

[55:56] question ever got asked.

[55:57] Yes,

[55:59] MR. Mayor. Yes. So it's the

[56:01] proximity to Monterey and then

[56:04] the proximity to 528.

[56:04] Okay.

[56:06] Thank you. That's all I have.

[56:08] Anything further from council?

[56:10] MR. Mayor, if I MAY, real fast.

[56:12] MR. City Manager.

[56:14] Elaborate on

[56:17] the. Currently on 528

[56:18] southbound. There is no right

[56:21] turn or deceleration lane to

[56:23] overgrown. Same thing on 528

[56:24] northbound. There's not a

[56:26] deceleration lane onto Corrales

[56:29] Road. The reference from Rio

[56:31] Rancho pd in their

[56:32] conversations because they

[56:33] participate in different safety

[56:35] reviews of the. The dot part of

[56:37] the different meetings. They

[56:39] have highlighted that from a

[56:40] law enforcement perspective.

[56:42] And I think our our engineering

[56:43] folks and development services

[56:44] and public works have also

[56:45] highlighted that that that is

[56:47] the an issue at that

[56:49] intersection is the lack of

[56:50] deceleration lanes to make

[56:54] right turns east or west.

[56:54] Thank

[56:56] you, MR. City Manager. Anything

[56:59] further from council.

[56:59] MR. Mayor?

[57:02] I just wanted to ask, I don't

[57:03] know if that makes a difference

[57:05] or not, but in any of my

[57:08] counterparts. But in the

[57:09] conversation back with the dot,

[57:10] they said that the current

[57:12] proposed development would not

[57:13] meet the required spacing of

[57:17] the 450 to 625 part parcel

[57:19] access, meaning it's not wide

[57:20] enough for them. That's their

[57:21] validation for not giving the

[57:23] right in right out. However, if

[57:25] you measure the space, we're

[57:27] actually in the 590 foot range.

[57:29] So so it's just someone making

[57:31] a decision. There's also the

[57:32] opportunity that I don't know

[57:33] if they're willing or not, but

[57:35] the the property owner could

[57:39] throw in another half acre and,

[57:40] and make those measurements. So

[57:42] it's very doable. It's clearly

[57:44] a decision on the part of the

[57:45] dot to not be workable. So I

[57:48] just I wanted to put that out

[57:52] there. My apologies to Maverick.

[57:54] You know, I tend to agree with

[57:55] a lot of the comments that have

[57:57] been said. And I think it's

[57:58] somewhat, if not very short

[58:00] sighted. We have a solution

[58:02] here that not only solves the

[58:04] problem with the Maverick, but

[58:05] several other lots that are

[58:08] along the frontage of 528, and

[58:09] we are going to lose that

[58:12] opportunity because again, you

[58:14] got the rest of the council has

[58:16] thrown the dot under the bus

[58:18] very, very effectively, so I

[58:20] won't be beating a dead horse.

[58:23] But it's very unfortunate that

[58:25] that simple change could have

[58:26] resulted in a different outcome

[58:28] here. Although we haven't taken

[58:30] a vote yet. That said, is there

[58:33] anything further from council?

[58:38] MISS Davis, call the roll.

[58:41] Councilor.

[58:43] Yes.

[58:43] Councilor

[58:48] Dobson, councilor Tyler. No.

[58:49] Councilor. Man.

[58:50] No.

[58:51] Councilor

[58:53] Culbreth. No. Councilor list.

[59:00] No. The d 23 fails.

[59:02] All right,

[59:04] moving on to the second reading

[59:06] of ordinances. We have none.

[59:08] First reading of ordinances. We

[59:10] also have none. Discussion and

[59:12] deliberation. We have no items

[59:15] there. So it's Europe. MR. City

[59:16] manager.

[59:17] MR. Mayor, members of

[59:18] the governing body. Good

[59:20] evening. I'd like to kind of go

[59:23] through a couple items this

[59:27] evening, if I MAY. First of all,

[59:29] tomorrow, SEPTEMBER 11th, nine

[59:30] over 11. It's hard to believe

[59:34] it's been 25 years. It's very

[59:35] you know, think about I

[59:36] appreciate the moment of

[59:39] reflection, mayor, for that

[59:40] tough day in America. Our

[59:43] history. For me, I was living

[59:44] halfway across the country. I'd

[59:46] been in my new, new location

[59:47] for about two weeks when it

[59:49] happened so far from family and

[59:51] friends. But visiting the nine

[59:53] over 11 memorial in New York

[59:54] City was a tremendous moment

[59:56] for me as well. Actually

[59:57] visited with one of our Rio

[59:58] Rancho, was retired

[59:59] firefighters, so it was a

[1:00:01] special moment for him as well.

[1:00:02] For us to go through that and

[1:00:04] just reflect on what it means

[1:00:06] for our country and, you know,

[1:00:07] personally, been very busy of

[1:00:09] late. And so hopefully I find

[1:00:11] some time to take a moment to

[1:00:14] reflect on. On nine over 11

[1:00:17] tomorrow and, and thoughts and

[1:00:18] thoughts for everyone who lost

[1:00:20] close family and friends in

[1:00:23] that process. A couple other

[1:00:26] things. This Saturday, pooch

[1:00:30] plunge at Heinz from it's from

[1:00:31] 10 to 2 and nestled in Pooch

[1:00:34] Plunge, we have our counselor

[1:00:36] governing body meet and greet

[1:00:38] from 11 to 1, so we look

[1:00:39] forward, look forward to seeing

[1:00:43] folks out at Heinz Park this

[1:00:44] weekend. I would like to kind

[1:00:46] of cover over, cover some other

[1:00:47] kind of business items, if I

[1:00:50] MAY. As we know, there is a

[1:00:52] election in the first Tuesday

[1:00:56] of NOVEMBER. It is a federal

[1:00:59] and state election. Hearing

[1:01:00] some feedback from the

[1:01:02] governing body, in particular,

[1:01:05] Councilor Tyler, we sent a

[1:01:07] proactive letter to the

[1:01:10] declared candidates about the

[1:01:12] city's sign ordinance for

[1:01:13] temporary signs in the right of

[1:01:15] way that was sent to the

[1:01:17] information listed on the New

[1:01:18] Mexico Secretary of State's

[1:01:20] website. So if there's any

[1:01:21] candidates out there listening

[1:01:24] or people supporting candidates,

[1:01:26] helping candidates, please look

[1:01:28] at the letter. We had one

[1:01:29] candidate say, yeah, I got your

[1:01:31] letter, and I threw it away.

[1:01:32] That was after we picked up

[1:01:34] several of their signs for not

[1:01:36] having the appropriate permit.

[1:01:40] So, or simply email

[1:01:41] planning@rr.Gov. In the

[1:01:42] planning department, the

[1:01:44] Planning Division will assist

[1:01:47] the campaign in the signage

[1:01:49] process. A lot of conversations

[1:01:52] around license plate readers.

[1:01:54] As we know at our recent work

[1:01:58] session in AUGUST, captain and

[1:02:00] members of the Rio Rancho

[1:02:01] Police Department provided a.

[1:02:04] An overview and an information

[1:02:07] session on on on license plate

[1:02:09] readers. Information from that

[1:02:10] presentation has been posted on

[1:02:11] a dedicated page on the city's

[1:02:14] website. You know, you can find

[1:02:16] it on our m.Gov or simply

[1:02:18] Google Rio Rancho license

[1:02:19] plates reader. You can find a

[1:02:21] lot of information. We put it

[1:02:23] out there on purpose to share

[1:02:25] it with the public so they can

[1:02:27] learn more about how the city

[1:02:28] of Rio Rancho is using the

[1:02:29] license plate reader programs.

[1:02:32] So again, encourage folks to to

[1:02:34] look at that as a resource. And,

[1:02:36] and it's there on the city's

[1:02:41] website also, I have here,

[1:02:42] Peter went upstairs and got

[1:02:44] some water bills for me. I

[1:02:45] thought it would be important

[1:02:47] in a timely to address

[1:02:48] something that was, that was

[1:02:52] said this evening, the city,

[1:02:54] you know, the the the water.

[1:02:56] Rate adjustments that came up,

[1:02:58] you know, a year ago, we've

[1:03:00] acknowledged it. And talked

[1:03:02] about the process to get it

[1:03:04] corrected. Unfortunately, given

[1:03:08] a rather old erp system wasn't

[1:03:11] an easy process in calculating

[1:03:12] those credits in our enterprise

[1:03:14] resource planning system, our

[1:03:17] erp, starting on AUGUST 11th,

[1:03:19] the city started to issue the

[1:03:22] credits for fy 26 and the

[1:03:24] billing cycle of SEPTEMBER. We

[1:03:27] will see fy 25 and fy 24, and

[1:03:31] then OCTOBER will be fy 23 and

[1:03:36] fy 22, NOVEMBER fy 21 and fy 20.

[1:03:39] There are messages in the bill

[1:03:40] explaining that. And the big

[1:03:42] bold blue. So folks are

[1:03:44] starting to see those. It's

[1:03:47] also worth noting that we did

[1:03:49] offer to individuals. When this

[1:03:51] was acknowledged in this. This

[1:03:52] error was detected and that

[1:03:55] came from citizen input that

[1:03:56] anyone wanted to request a

[1:03:57] credit at that time and not

[1:03:59] wait for us to go through that

[1:04:00] process. We calculate credits

[1:04:02] and issue those manually. We

[1:04:03] had a handful of residents, 5

[1:04:05] to 10 residents or so took us

[1:04:07] up on that. But the process is

[1:04:09] rolling out right now, and

[1:04:11] there is a message in the water

[1:04:13] bill up in the upper left hand

[1:04:15] corner. So with that, MR. Mayor,

[1:04:17] members of the governing body,

[1:04:18] have a good evening.

[1:04:19] Thank you.

[1:04:21] Thank you, MR. City Manager. We

[1:04:39] are adjourned.

Governing Body Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript