Hobbs Commission approves three resolutions on interim storage site and housing development incentives

The Hobbs City Commission on March 3 adopted three resolutions: Resolution 75‑92, supporting Eddie Lee Energy Alliance LLC (ALIA) to respond to the U.S. Department of Energy’s request for information on siting a federal consolidated interim storage facility; Resolution 75‑93, approving a development agreement with Corrales Construction to support a market‑rate single‑family housing project; and Resolution 75‑94, approving a development agreement with Berry and Gomez LLC for a market‑rate single‑family housing project.

Why it matters: the three actions combine economic development and housing incentives with a formal municipal endorsement for ALIA’s bid to engage the DOE site search process. The housing agreements use the city’s incentive policy to reimburse public infrastructure costs tied to private development, enabling additional single‑family lots to come online.

Resolution 75‑92 (Eddie Lee Energy Alliance LLC / DOE consolidated interim storage facility) The item was introduced by the deputy city attorney on behalf of the applicant and described the ALIA property as "halfway between Carlsbad and Hobbs" and located on parcel 62180 (as stated in the meeting). The commission received no substantive questions and voted to adopt the resolution.

Motion and vote (from transcript): - Motion: moved by Commissioner Girth. - Second: seconded by Commissioner Smith. - Vote record called by the clerk (Miss Fletcher): Commissioner Smith — yes; Commissioner Mills — yes; Commissioner Calderon — yes; Commissioner Pinnock — yes; Commissioner Girth — yes; Mayor Cobb — yes. Outcome: approved (unanimous recorded vote as called).

Resolution 75‑93 (Corrales Construction development agreement) Staff described the agreement as part of the city’s housing incentive program; staff said Corrales had produced 14 units under prior agreements and that the total contract amount for the new agreement is $150,000 to produce approximately 10 additional houses. Staff said about $2,200,000 remained in the incentive fund and that the county will provide recurring funds (described in the meeting as "about 2.8 per year over the next 5 years" — funding unit not specified in the transcript). The commission voted to approve the development agreement.

Motion and vote (from transcript): - Motion: not specified in the record excerpt. - Second: not specified in the record excerpt. - Vote record called by the clerk: Commissioner Smith — yes; Commissioner Mills — yes; Commissioner Calderon — yes; Commissioner Penick — yes; Commissioner Girth — yes; Mayor Cobb — yes. Outcome: approved.

Resolution 75‑94 (Berry and Gomez LLC development agreement) Staff presented a similar housing incentive agreement for Berry and Gomez LLC for water‑line participation only; staff reported the total participation amount as $70,000 and said lots in the subdivision would have larger frontages (roughly 150–200 feet) and lower per‑unit reimbursements because the city would only participate in water lines rather than full infrastructure.

Motion and vote (from transcript): - Motion: moved by Commissioner Penick. - Second: seconded by Commissioner Smith. - Vote record called by the clerk: Commissioner Smith — yes; Commissioner Mills — yes; Commissioner Calderon — yes; Commissioner Penick — yes; Commissioner Girth — yes; Mayor Cobb — yes. Outcome: approved.

What was recorded and what was not - The transcript records unanimous "yes" votes as the clerk called each seat for all three resolutions; no "no" votes or recorded abstentions were called in the provided excerpt. - Specific contract language and precise funding mechanisms (for example, the transcript’s "2.8 per year" reference) were not specified with units in the meeting excerpt; the article lists amounts and fund balances exactly as stated by staff.

Next steps: staff and the developers will proceed under the terms of the respective development agreements; the ALIA matter advances the applicant’s effort to participate in the DOE process (no DOE decision was reported at the meeting).