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

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.