[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6518135,"mediaKeyId","5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f","parentId",5399198,"title","Rio Rancho advisory board backs $18 million in general obligation bond questions, with roads to receive largest share","audioSeconds",860,"startMs",975000,"endMs",1835000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f&start=975&end=1835","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f/thumbnail_975000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6518135/Rio-Rancho/Sandoval-County/New-Mexico/Rio-Rancho-advisory-board-backs-18-million-in-general-obligation-bond-questions-with-roads-to-receive-largest-share","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518135-e7ce34ed64a3ae817ce1f819e4fc83ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505777&Signature=nBtxYD~Ow~MCrXQhE1X8UgwPU01IcFdgQNzFLuE39eosCfCa~0iWqUL1g5IRcSvHbsmOFpiOlYSGJIdWjoO5RwOEiYw6fRY4B1kargLswidf1iHMO3mdhMAt2NEt7UFnHtFmc3GG5u9HLbRGSury~U8cLbHf-Yqwv~ZdizAqC8eRLidAJig9WVfu7MVFTOQtA3Bu~n3tYVtTqon0-DgEjKVwwU4cSIXSTtvmLKWBTP56VPdkTMxVHS~9byYSPon9VkKkdt7fKCif1ZN4lR0guoFsgqk5bz6MHSxJeuibfrZh5VsYTDGkfYTx6Wvh9EnfcCbsBELuW3Vej3ugt3R6Mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Rio Rancho","date","2025-07-15T18:00:00Z","article","The City of Rio Rancho Public Infrastructure Advisory Board on an affirmative roll-call vote approved staff’s recommendation to place a package of general obligation bond questions totaling $18,000,000 on the March 3, 2026 ballot, with the largest portion proposed for road projects.

Deputy City Manager Wells told the board staff recommends three bond questions totaling $18 million split among public safety, quality-of-life facilities and roads, and that the roads component would receive the majority of available proceeds. Based on staff estimates, $18 million in approved bond questions could be placed on the 03/03/2026 ballot without a property tax rate increase; staff said a larger $23 million package was modeled and would raise annual property taxes on a $300,000 home by about $47.

Why it matters: the board’s role is to provide input on proposals tied to bonds or loans for roads, drainage and water/wastewater utilities; the governing body must decide this fall whether to place the questions on the ballot for voter approval. Bond proceeds allow the city to fund long-lived infrastructure projects that are otherwise difficult to pay for from annual operating revenues.

Details the board heard
- Staff described an $18 million recommendation that would produce approximately $11.2 million available for roads after required issuance costs, a statutory 1% arts set-aside and contingency. Staff identified roughly $12.4 million targeted to roads before those deductions and said bond proceeds were expected to cover about $11.6 million of project costs shown to the board.
- Staff noted the projects shown to the board have a higher combined cost (more than $21 million), and that the FY2026 budget already includes about $8.8 million plus roughly $1 million in utility funds that staff intends to pair with bond proceeds to complete four specific road projects described in staff materials.
- Staff reminded the board of limits on bond-funded work (some small, short-lived repairs like pothole patching are not appropriate for multi-decade debt) and that the city has an ongoing two‑year bonding cycle; staff said the city’s five‑year planning document lists roughly $260 million in road needs, with about 13% expected from bonding.

Board action and next steps
The board approved the staff recommendation by roll-call vote (see “Votes at a glance” below). Staff will compile input from citizen boards and the forthcoming citizen survey and present recommendations to the governing body this fall for final decisions on project lists and ballot placement. If the governing body places questions on the ballot and voters approve them, staff will proceed to project delivery and match bond proceeds to the identified projects.

Votes at a glance
- Approval of consent calendar (04/29/2025 minutes): approved by roll call (Member Pearson: Yes; Member Lloyd: Yes; Member Iyer: Yes).
- Nomination and appointment of Juan Martinez as chair: approved by roll call (Member Iyer: Yes; Member Lloyd: Yes; Member Pearson: Yes).
- Nomination and appointment of Member Lloyd as vice chair: approved by roll call (Member Lloyd: Yes; Member Pearson: Yes; Member Iyer: Yes).
- Approval of staff recommendation on GO bonds (staff presentation on $18,000,000 package): approved by roll call (Member Pearson: Yes; Member Lloyd: Yes; Member Iyer: Yes).

Context and fiscal notes
Deputy City Manager Wells reminded the board that bond questions are funded through property taxes, and presented modeled tax impacts: staff said the $18 million scenario would not increase the property tax rate under current valuations, while a larger $23 million scenario would increase taxes modestly on a median-valued home. Staff also showed the counterfactual: if no bond questions are placed or if voters reject the questions, the city would see scheduled debt falloff in the first year that would reduce property taxes for a typical $300,000 home by about $277, according to staff’s example.

What the board asked
Board members pressed staff on how staff prioritized specific roads and why some higher‑traffic corridors received lower dollar amounts in the staff list; staff said project length, width, pavement thickness, striping, bike lanes and drainage needs factor into project cost estimates, so a shorter but heavily used corridor can require less total expenditure than a longer corridor with lower average daily traffic.

What’s next
Staff will gather feedback from other citizen boards and citizen survey responses over the summer, then return recommendations to the governing body for final decisions on ballot language, question amounts and project lists this fall. Any placement on the March 3, 2026 ballot would require the governing body’s action later this year.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rio Rancho - Public Infrastructure Advisory Board - Jul 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City of Rio Rancho Public Infrastructure Advisory Board approved staff’s recommendation to ask voters about $18 million in general obligation bond questions on March 3, 2026, with the largest share earmarked for road projects.","taxTitle","Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico","taxId",2726,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6518127,"City staff reviews Open Meetings Act, agenda rules and conflict-of-interest guidance with advisory board",409,195000,604000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f&start=195&end=604","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f/thumbnail_195000.jpg","/articles/6518127/Rio-Rancho/Sandoval-County/New-Mexico/City-staff-reviews-Open-Meetings-Act-agenda-rules-and-conflict-of-interest-guidance-with-advisory-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518127-f0675a27b1696c8a021c751b2a7bdce3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505777&Signature=WbwN3nyVdrQqrxMwQp2vuMYqeLXeTTU2SraiSToDa9~TV6MENZ9MPtUVHJ8LzLwGD9fzjJjlarg37-cV2IBkqczjgfwd4kFeXgNyUvZYT5ESbv1jRhmrTWVMcyYlHU5SfZh3aEMljcWJXSbn2grtv7EEFI8fr0NOuf-TJlp5yOcIWvM6VQ-YHrqWpXrYOW25BiTIIRINMJfBeIxJ-JjGTH8Mf1IGlGpcIUU73BiUD9o~J0JdksMudKFwmK88lUU75w4wBuCVMB4kBTuIIorFRCgkOKVTXjl-oNqr1pu5jgQ782jFjzUI2pkZQZRJD-QEY8P7xVOibkf6Xa0Uh9vecA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff opened the meeting with a presentation on the New Mexico Open Meetings Act and the board’s rules of procedure, reviewing notice requirements, quorum rules, public forum procedures, meeting decorum and conflict‑of‑interest obligations.

Staff told members the Open Meetings Act is intended to ensure transparency and that the governing body adopts an Open Meetings Act resolution annually; staff recommended members consult the New Mexico Department of Justice materials for details. Staff explained agenda posting norms (the Open Meetings Act requires 72 hours’ notice but the city typically posts agendas 7 to 10 days ahead), and reminded members that agendas should include specific items and any available supporting materials.

Staff emphasized meeting decorum and rules of procedure: members should seek recognition from the chair before speaking, make motions and wait for seconds, and record roll-call votes to create a public record. The presenter warned about the legal risk of a “rolling quorum” — informal serial communications among a majority of members outside a properly noticed meeting that can violate the Open Meetings Act — and advised members not to discuss board business outside of noticed meetings.

Conflict-of-interest and recusal guidance
Staff said that if a board member has a potential conflict (for example, a relative doing business with the city on a water chemical supply), the member should contact staff, Director Gottlieb or Deputy City Manager Wells before a meeting so the city can consult legal staff and, if necessary, record a recusal.

Public forum rules
The presenter described public forum rules used by the city: speakers must register, comments are limited to two minutes per speaker (time set by the mayor and governing body) and the forum is for items not on the agenda; members of the public may also speak on agenda items unless the item is currently under active consideration by the governing body or was postponed.

Board questions and guidance
No substantive policy changes were made; staff offered to provide printed or electronic copies of the rules of procedure and to answer follow‑up questions.

Administrative note
Staff confirmed a quorum was present (three of the four board members) and moved the meeting to the posted agenda.","At the start of the meeting staff reviewed the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, the board’s rules of procedure, posting and quorum rules, public‑forum rules and conflict‑of‑interest guidance, and warned about rolling quorums.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6518131,"Public Works details Broadmoor, neighborhood streets, pipeline projects and roundabout plans; funding gaps remain",378,2382000,2760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f&start=2382&end=2760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f/thumbnail_2382000.jpg","/articles/6518131/Rio-Rancho/Sandoval-County/New-Mexico/Public-Works-details-Broadmoor-neighborhood-streets-pipeline-projects-and-roundabout-plans-funding-gaps-remain","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518131-ea7cac5843c2474b3f2b3cc12a1f3023/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505777&Signature=WCuWafgQh2dWTanFHTBQgMzN7D0JCIY4b6vqwoql2AYH8x-0J9D2WVn7FdKHhYnpIZeJ0LAVI-DsKprhPPpVD08nI5ZYVZzgYgepws7xNtKmDa8elInnY6Cc1XhIpUVOppaeG-FM2UjSWwmzl6nsFIJnagn7ScBQE2Xur8CSDrwaoTs~OEsxltKMHWVU9h5yuGMJ7gPRzwoSl5CZ1cwNVjTzkiQRSX5ir8mM8uk3OD7mC3oK2xmrHUv9mi6dYJ7VjsVsOZLL7vLBBcdI2K79COFLzPZyAbsvuC0BfLWzLu29mIYUYt0pwCehVUTCSRUNiDn0x7oFlpHXJiPtHrq4lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Public Works staff updated the Public Infrastructure Advisory Board on a lengthy slate of roadway and pipeline projects, noting active construction on Broadmoor Boulevard, ongoing neighborhood street programs, and multiyear pipeline corridor projects intended to leverage federal construction funding. Staff also described a roundabout proposal at Sarah Road and Meadowlark Lane that currently lacks full construction funding.

Key items reported
- Broadmoor Boulevard: construction is underway from Country Club Drive to Loma Colorado; staff said the contractor (Albuquerque Asphalt) was progressing and the project may finish sooner than the anticipated 12 months. A detour is active at Panorama Heights.
- Neighborhood Streets Improvement Program (NSIP): staff described hybrid mill-and-inlay residential reconstruction phases; phase 3 is ongoing and work will continue district by district with in‑house patch-and-seal work scheduled to resume in September.
- Sarah Road and Meadowlark Lane roundabout and waterline: staff said the project is roughly $7,000,000 total; the city received about $1.0 million in a HUD grant and must identify the remaining roughly $6.0 million to construct the roadway and utilities. Staff confirmed an application to the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program was submitted and that selections are expected later in the year; the roundabout is a test case for future large intersection controls.
- Pipeline projects and corridors: staff reiterated the city’s approach to fund early design and right‑of‑way work (“pipeline projects”) to make corridors shovel‑ready for federal construction grants. Unser Boulevard reconstruction was cited as a roughly $31,000,000 corridor where federal funds previously covered part of costs (about $14,000,000) but additional local funding is required.
- Cost and safety tradeoffs for roundabouts: staff noted roundabouts have higher upfront costs but lower long‑term maintenance and safety benefits; staff referenced engineering guidance that a conventional intersection can have many more crash conflict points than a roundabout, reducing severity when collisions occur. Staff gave example one intersection control estimate as high as $16–$18 million for complex roundabout work and associated drainage.

Funding challenges
Staff emphasized that many corridor projects are large (tens of millions) and will require a mix of federal grants, state funding and local capital. The timing of federal agreements (for example the state DOT cooperative agreement process) can delay project starts until federal fiscal year windows align.

Board questions and follow-up
Members asked about project timing, right-of-way acquisition and coordination between utilities and public works; staff said FY2026 budget allocations include some right-of-way funding and that staff will pursue federal grants and DOT cooperative agreements. The board requested continued updates as grant decisions and cooperative agreements are finalized.

Next steps
Public Works will continue construction on Broadmoor, phase neighborhood programs, pursue federal funding for Sarah Road roundabout and advance pipeline corridor designs and right-of-way work to position larger projects for federal construction grants.","City public works staff reviewed progress on 2024 bond projects and a list of proposed 2026 projects, neighborhood street programs, Broadmoor Boulevard construction, pipeline corridor projects and an SS4A roundabout application for Sarah Road; staff highlighted large costs for roundabouts and federal funding dependencies.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6518133,"Rio Rancho utility officials outline wastewater and water projects, ARPA and Army Corps funding noted",1865,1877000,3742000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f&start=1877&end=3742","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5399198-e860aec1d2f8d4969b51a8dd4037c28f/thumbnail_1877000.jpg","/articles/6518133/Rio-Rancho/Sandoval-County/New-Mexico/Rio-Rancho-utility-officials-outline-wastewater-and-water-projects-ARPA-and-Army-Corps-funding-noted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518133-17aedc8f0f0e18c2303c427d6ac1f9c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770505777&Signature=AJps2UlLYG6Oe2rSaOgaLLxkCxYXs0yMzAfnKayPo34VTKV4Pqq9qvnqdNe6ojOmag0R0nKHQUD6TK5dHSQDlqye8HQzx9y6HUU5RqhvDT0rP1-fjjvBW9pV8t8MKNQA9qlUOGwktJ9AYhXNX5TF~tuXLMLtPlKQFawBM02tc~EJNwP3iOQ1o5PcATxfkN9yGxjqck-Mfqntk9ruDFb2UDuhZ6ZjyxyKw1YU-TDxAEf3x0qp5TBYEjIAJv3kqPbj7Nh4yysg68~1UXsNgi9qmsZqHMDRaqrFOne8flXCh7SB--MepXouHRXSN6Xg5K9z9VyxI~FP~98cBaZD-33sjg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Rio Rancho utilities staff updated the Public Infrastructure Advisory Board on a slate of water and wastewater projects underway or in design, citing federal matches and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) support for major capital work.

Micah Sodillo of the utilities department summarized active projects and timing: the wastewater treatment plant headworks replacement was awarded to contractor AUI in December on a roughly $28,000,000 contract; staff said a greater portion (more than $11,000,000) of that contract is expected to be funded with ARPA dollars and that a notice to proceed was issued in January 2025 with a design/construction period of roughly 2,100 calendar days and construction expected to begin in late fall. Sodillo said the project is in the submittal review phase.

Other wastewater projects reported
- Lift Station 22 upgrades near Corrales and 528: design at 90% and bids expected late summer 2025.
- Willow Creek to Lift Station 22 force main: design and bid activity expected late summer 2025.
- Wastewater Treatment Plant 5 membrane bioreactor expansion: project would raise permitted treatment from 250,000 to 500,000 gallons per day; design work under review with CDM Smith.

Water projects and supply work
- Well 13 equipping: staff said construction of the well building is complete and equipment installation should conclude in July or early August; staff described the equipping as adding roughly 1,000,000 gallons per day of capacity and estimated the project cost near $7,200,000.
- Unser transmission line: a five‑mile, 24‑inch secondary transmission line to serve Mariposa and Enchanted Hills is about 90% designed and is undergoing an Army Corps of Engineers environmental assessment; total cost estimated at $9,000,000 with the Corps expected to match about 75% (approximately $5.4 million).
- Well 9 equipping and piping: Well 9 has been drilled and a roughly three‑mile pipe to bring the supply into the system is in design; staff estimate this project at about $7,600,000 with approximately $1,000,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers.
- Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI): the city is replacing approximately 5,500 meters, mostly in Northern Meadows and Unit 11, with projected cost around $2,200,000; staff said the installation should be substantially complete within the next week.
- Other items: Well 17 booster station, Bridal Loop and Meadowlark concurrent waterline work with public works roadway improvements, and a replacement sodium hypochlorite generation system for Well 21 were also listed in the update.

Public comment on water reporting
At public forum, resident Mister Van Horn said a water quality report recently posted on the city site omitted a page describing the Rio Rancho Pier water purification and aquifer storage project and questioned injection volumes, noting last year’s injection volume appeared to be well below the project’s million‑gallons‑per‑day target. Van Horn asked the board and staff to consider those questions; staff did not provide a response during the public comment period but recorded the request for follow‑up.

What board members asked
Members asked about rainwater harvesting and whether the city had facilities; Sodillo said he was not aware of any existing rainwater harvesting facilities and would follow up. Members also asked timing and funding questions for the Army Corps projects and equipment schedules.

Next steps
Staff will continue design and permitting steps, pursue Army Corps environmental review and funding agreements, and complete AMI installations. The larger projects (transmission line, treated capacity expansions and headworks replacement) will proceed through contract administration, environmental review and construction phases as funding is finalized.

(Disclosure: project cost figures and funding shares were presented by city staff during the meeting.)","City utilities staff reported progress on multiple water and wastewater projects, including a $28 million headworks replacement at the wastewater treatment plant with ARPA support, membrane and well projects, a five‑mile transmission line with Army Corps matching funds, and an advanced metering rollout.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Rio Rancho advisory board backs $18 million in general obligation bond questions, with roads to receive largest share

City staff reviews Open Meetings Act, agenda rules and conflict-of-interest guidance with advisory board

Public Works details Broadmoor, neighborhood streets, pipeline projects and roundabout plans; funding gaps remain

Rio Rancho utility officials outline wastewater and water projects, ARPA and Army Corps funding noted