Town Square›Parks & Rec Watch›December 19, 2024

Parks & Rec Advisory Board · December 19, 2024

The board endorses park dedication — developers build the park, no reimbursement

Six of seven members endorsed the parks section of Realize Las Cruces, the first update to the City's development code since 2001. It would require developers to build a neighborhood park at their own cost with no reimbursement — a mechanism Las Cruces has never used — and, unlike impact fees, it can raise the level of service rather than just hold it.

Called to order approximately 6:00 p.m. · adjourned Not recorded — the minutes record the motion to adjourn but no time. · 20 pages · source document ↗

If you read nothing else

The board endorsed the parks section of Realize Las Cruces as is, by roll call, unanimously. It is the only action item recorded in the 2024 file.
Park dedication would require developers to build a neighborhood park at their cost with no reimbursement — a minimum of three acres, roughly three acres per 1,000 people.
Impact fees legally cannot raise the level of service; park dedication can. The City's current standard is 0.85 acres of neighborhood park and 1.29 acres of community park per 1,000 people.
The current impact fee is $2,600, which Bingham put at $16.86 per month on a 30-year mortgage.
Planning and Zoning approved with two proposed modifications — delete section 5.5 and address it later, or accept the Home Builders Association's proposal to reimburse developers 50% of the neighborhood park. City Council at its work session did not agree with P&Z.
The Youth Development and Diversion program, named New Mexico State Youth Program of the Year, has a staff of six against a budgeted nine.

Who was in the room

6 of 7 seats represented.

Present

Fred Raish — At large member (Chair)
Laura Haas — District 6 (Vice-Chair)
Charles Beard — District 2
Miley Sarah Grandjean — District 1
Kylie Aleja Jenkins — District 5
Aracely Tellez — District 3

Absent

Alana Bradley — District 4

Staff

Steven Bingham — Director, Parks & Recreation
Robert Nunez — Deputy Director, Youth Services, Parks and Recreation
Hazel Nevarez — Senior Office Manager, Parks & Recreation
Joey Dominguez — Parks Administration
Miguel Terrazas — Diversion Specialist, Parks & Recreation
Carol Montoya — Diversion Specialist, Parks & Recreation
Camica Ramirez — Diversion Specialist, Parks & Recreation

Others

Kenneth Coppedge
Chris Faivre — answered for Community Development during item 7.1; not listed in Others Present

Public comment

Kept at length on purpose. Every point raised is listed, in the order the minutes record it.

Anonymous respondents — Polco survey "Proposed New Dog Park Rules"Appendix, pages 10-16. These pages belong to the January 16, 2025 meeting packet, not to this meeting; the December 19, 2024 meeting recorded "Public Participation: None." The free-text answers are reproduced here at length because they are the only public comment on the dog park rules that this document carries.

Why would someone need to be 15 to enter a park? This seems like you want to punish young people instead of just banning aggressive dogs.
No children inside the park — it only takes an instant for a child to be knocked down by playing dogs, and parents don't watch their children as it is.
No children under 10.
What are we hoping to achieve by prohibiting human food and dog treats? Owners should understand the implications of bringing treats; some may want to use the environment for positive reinforcement and training and bring treats at their own risk. Dog parks are also places for humans to socialize, which may include a snack. Consider instead adding a rule that all vaccinations, especially rabies, are up to date.
It's close, but dog handlers and owners should be adults — what does a scenario look like where a 15 year old's dog attacks or gets attacked? Would also like unvaccinated dogs prohibited, and more liability on owners with unvaccinated dogs.
Treats are an essential part of behavioral training for dogs; the other rules make good sense. Please also consider more shade for suffering dogs and people.
People should be able to enjoy any local free park with their pets as they would taking a child to the park; owners already have existing legal responsibilities.
Add required vaccinations — distemper/parvo and rabies — and check that they are up to date, not just present.
You need a better, more specific definition of aggressive dog. Bigger dogs often get the blame even when a smaller dog is the aggressor. The definition should be clear that it is the behavior of the dog, not the size.
Intact male dogs have caused aggression problems, seen at Rinconada park. Who is monitoring? Puppies at three months old have not had all their shots.
I've seen kids in the dog park around big dogs and it seems unsafe.
Keep the part about the dominating and over-excited dog — that should also require removal from the park.
I agree with the new rules entirely.
Fine people who don't park in the parking area; some park in the firefighter lane. I couldn't get to the parking lot farthest from the dog park because people were parking in areas not meant for parking.
Too restrictive and we don't need more rules. As a person with a disability I don't have my dog on a leash going into the park and there is no reason to require it. The old rule covers it — "owners are responsible". If people are not following the current rules they are not going to follow more rules. There are no consequences posted. I would not use the dog parks anymore because my dog is not on a leash — that is why I enjoy going to an off leash park.
Agree with the changes, but also add that all dogs must be up to date on vaccines; all dogs must be spayed/neutered unless exempt by the city; children under 7 are not allowed in the park at all as a safety issue; and children are not allowed to run, play games, or throw balls — it's too dangerous.
I don't believe a dog park is a good place for children under 5. Too many parents don't watch their kids, much less their dogs.
No reason to mandate leashes at entrance/exit — many dogs navigate those better off leash. Could be advised, at the owner's discretion. I'm fine with the other changes.
Sometimes people bring treats and dogs are very well handled by each owner; sometimes dogs have incidents where they bite for their own safety reasons. Teenagers can be responsible as early as 13 years of age.
The rules don't seem that different — the new rules are just a bit more broken down and defined.
Because I see no enforcement of any of the rules now. Who is going to enforce the new rules? Like the lady who sits in her car on the phone while her dog roams the park — she says it is not a rule. Like the folks who don't leash their dogs getting in and out of the park and instead let them run the fence and get the dogs in the park running and barking. Like parents who come in with kids under 5 — no one asks them to leave. The whole thing is a joke without enforcement.
I agree with the above but also suggest: (1) a weight limit of 35 pounds or less for the small dog side; (2) the RULES sign lettering needs to be much bigger, specifically for no food in the park and for the weight limit on the small side; (3) there should be a contact name and number on the sign so people can report park issues. From all the fence running the road base has become a trench you can easily put your foot under, meaning small and large dogs can be nose to nose. I mentioned it to staff cleaning there one Thursday morning; he said he had a shovel and would take care of it, but nothing has been done. This is at Rinconada dog park.
Children under 5 should still not be allowed, for their own safety. Dogs in heat should still be banned as they are prone to cause fights.
If I can't bring dog treats, I can't train my dogs at a park.
You need to add a rule that says no dog food or treats and no human food in the park. It often creates fights between the dogs and that rule needs to be enforced.
Let Animal Control be able to trespass aggressive dog owners from the park.
How often is the area cleaned? My dogs don't go because they leave with fleas.
I think all animals must be fixed to play in the park.
Yes, but need to add prohibiting intact males.
I feel like the old rules were enough. The new rules sound like too much. There's no one to enforce them either. Everyone should be able to enjoy the dog park, not just the ones who go there every day and want to control everything.
Maybe limit the number of dogs per person — like three per person.
Add that dogs should be vaccinated.
I agree with new rules.
The prohibited items need to be listed.
Dog treats are necessary for training.
I would add: if smoking, please pick up cigarette butts immediately.
Please stay with the current rules. The more rules you add the more difficult it is to follow them, and who will enforce them — the self-appointed citizens who use the park? If you want to improve the parks, look into the fact that the same people use the parks every day and essentially stay all day, making the space unwelcoming. At the one near Solano I have been harassed for parking in the disabled parking although I have a placard and use mobility equipment; the people who go every day feel like the spaces belong to them. The park has poor accessibility for people with disabilities in general. Burn Lake has great parking and accessibility, but many people I'd be afraid to be alone with. The issues you are addressing with these rules are not the real issues at the parks. The primary rule should be that owners are responsible for and pick up after the dog. Period.
Consider adding that dogs not neutered or spayed are only allowed in a special needs area — I've seen many fights when non-neutered dogs are in the park.
I agree.
I would like to see a limit on the number of dogs in the park at any given time.
Do not agree with dogs on leash when entering and exiting. Some dogs do better entering unleashed; when other dogs are standing at the gate, a leashed dog is more vulnerable. Better to have owners of dogs already in the park hold their dogs away from the gate. Also, intact male dogs should not be allowed at the park.
I agree with the changes.
Too vague, and does not address actual problems that happen at the parks. Ask the ones who go there regularly.
I don't agree with the dog food rule. I bring treats to reinforce my dog's behavior.
I agree with all above except I would want rules to reflect that dogs must be leashed from your car to the initial staging park entrance area, then must be unleashed when entering the park area. Leashed dogs coming into the park when all others are loose has created numerous near fights and makes the dog coming in very vulnerable.
I don't think it's necessary and it provides obstacles to some portions of the community.
I agree with all of the proposed changes except the "no treats" rule. I don't see the harm in treats, especially using them as motivators to teach dogs how to navigate the various obstacle courses.
Please fix the water.
If you take your dog to a dog park you should accept any risk that comes with it, and young children should not be allowed in the park.
Who is going to enforce these rules and determine financial responsibility?
I think we should still prohibit any child under 5 years old in the park. They just do not know how to interact with unfamiliar dogs. It is a huge risk to all.
Changes are vague and likely unenforceable. If I don't clean up after my dog, then what? And why aren't all dogs required to be neutered/spayed? More thought needs to be put into this, not just a "survey".
The second rule and the last rule about legal obligation overlap a little and could be combined into one rule.
Mostly standard rules.
What would be nice is a shade tarp on the sun umbrella in the small dog park — no shade from the south in summer.
Seems reasonable.
I agree with the new rules, especially picking up the dog waste immediately.
Four responses were left as "N/A", "Na", "Xxx", or "Agree".

"The whole thing is a joke without enforcement."

"Changes are vague and likely unenforceable. If I don't clean up after my dog, then what?"

"The issues that you are addressing with the rules are not the real issues that need to be addressed at parks."

"Who is going to enforce these rules and determine financial responsibility?"

On the record in response

None recorded in this document. The results slide is dated FINAL 01/16/2025 and no staff response appears until a meeting later than this one. Joey Dominguez told this meeting only that the dog park rules will be on the agenda for January.

6.1 Presentation to Kenneth Coppedge

A presentation was made to Kenneth Coppedge for his service on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Vice-Chair Haas thanked him for all his work.

6.2 Award to the Youth Development and Diversion Program

6 of 9 budgeted

Program staff

21 years in the City

Program age

Hatch to Sunland Park, Chaparral and Anthony

Service area

Tuesday-Saturday, until 7:00 p.m.

Hours

$1 spent saves $7

Return on youth spending

attributed to research from about 15-20 years ago; no source named

Steven Bingham said staff wanted to recognize the Youth staff for winning New Mexico State Youth Program of the Year. Robert Nunez introduced the diversion specialists: Miguel Terrazas, with the City for over nine years; Carol Montoya, two years; Camica Ramirez, two years. They work with youth on the educational aspect, visit them in the field, and do a lot of follow-up after youth go through the program.

Others named: Pat Acosta, the supervisor; Kiana Sandoval, intake specialist; and Samantha Armendariz, intake specialist. There is a staff of six, but the program is budgeted for a staff of nine. The team covers north to Hatch and south to Sunland Park, Chaparral, and Anthony, and normally works Tuesday through Saturday until 7:00 p.m.

The program was originally the Juvenile Citation Program, created as law enforcement was giving more citations. Those citations have been reduced, so staff looked at the preventative aspect, and it became the Development and Diversion Program. It has been within the City of Las Cruces for 21 years.

Bingham offered lunch to the Youth staff. He also said there is research from about 15-20 years ago that for every dollar spent working with youth you save seven dollars in the juvenile delinquent system, and that the City has some very committed people in this area.

6.3 Board Orientation

January 30, 6:00 p.m.

Proposed orientation

the only date the City Clerk has available

Vice-Chair Haas proposed a work session for board members to get an overview and orientation from the City Clerk, as there are numerous new board members. January 30 at 6:00 p.m. is the only date the clerk has available, the Thursday following the board meeting. Haas will send an e-mail to confirm attendance.

6.4 Land Use Assumption — Steven Bingham

at least every five years

Study frequency

state statute

TischlerBise

Consultant

did the previous two studies; over 1,000 impact analyses nationally

0.85 acres / 1,000 people

Neighborhood park LOS

1.29 acres / 1,000 people

Community park LOS

0.24 miles / 1,000 people

Trails LOS

0.49 sq ft / person

Recreation centers LOS

three centers: East Mesa, Frank O'Brien Papen, Meerscheidt

0.54 sq ft / person

Aquatic LOS

set for population through 2043

2.68 per household

Household size

but only 2.44 living in the unit

1.25%/year

Historical growth 2010-2021

U.S. Census

1.2%

Projected growth 2023-2033

4,391 single-family / 1,619 multifamily

Projected units

7 years

Impact fee lifetime

unspent money must be returned

Service areas

the whole City

quarter mile

Walking-distance standard

national standard adopted in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan

38 acres, "but is 0.33"

Airplane park

the minutes give no unit for 0.33

500 acres per first 100,000 people

Parkland reference figure

printed without further explanation, followed by "The next 5,000 has to stay at the same proportions financially"

The report was done by consultant TischlerBise, which did the previous two land use assumption reports and impact fee studies. This report covers only the land use assumption and level of service. State statute requires the study at least every five years. Bingham described it as a 45-year national practice and said TischlerBise has done over 1,000 impact analyses, impact fee studies, economic impact analyses, real estate and market feasibility work, and revenue enhancement options across the country.

Impact fees are a one-time payment for level of service contributions, charged to a residential unit at the time a building permit is pulled. All new housing has to provide the same level of service as previous housing put in service. The minutes then record, without further explanation: "There are 500 acres of parkland for the first 100,000 people. The next 5,000 has to stay at the same proportions financially." The fee cannot be used for operations, maintenance, or repairs. It is not a tax; it is a land use regulation. The principles given: growth creates the need for infrastructure, proportionality, growth pays its fair share of the cost and benefits, and growth receives the benefit from the infrastructure.

Land use assumptions look at household sizes per unit, population estimates and projected growth, housing unit estimates and projections, and a projection summary. The levels of service covered are neighborhood parks, community parks, athletic facilities, dog parks, trails, recreation centers, and indoor and outdoor aquatic facilities.

The study found single-family housing at 2.68 people per household but only 2.44 people living in the unit. The study reused occupancy density produced by the recently completed Public Safety Impact Fee rather than redoing the work. A historical growth chart from 2010 to 2021 showed an average of 1.25% growth per year, from the U.S. Census. Projected growth from 2023 to 2033 is a 1.2% increase in population. Projected units by year showed growth of 4,391 single-family and 1,619 multifamily units.

On level of service: a community park is greater than 10 acres, with neighborhood parks between three and 10 acres in the industry, though Bingham noted Las Cruces parks are a bit smaller, and that amenities in the park determine whether it is a neighborhood or community park. The City's level of service is 0.85 acres of neighborhood parks and 1.29 acres of community parks per 1,000 people.

Charles Beard asked whether the parks had to be in the area of improvement. Bingham said impact fees have a seven year lifetime — if not spent in seven years the money has to be returned — and that the City of Las Cruces has one service area for Parks and Recreation, the whole City. Most communities have only one service area because older sections collect very little impact fee and it would never be enough to use. The national standard, adopted in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, is that everyone should be within a quarter mile walking distance.

On specialty parks: dog parks, skate parks, and the airplane park, which the minutes record as "38 acres but is 0.33" without stating the unit. The Butterfield shooting range is a park but was removed from specialty parks as it inflated the figure too much. Trails are 0.24 miles per 1,000 people. There are three recreation centers — East Mesa, Frank O'Brien Papen, and Meerscheidt — at 0.49 square feet per person. Aquatic center level of service is 0.54 square feet per person, and Bingham said the level of service is set for population through 2043.

Vice-Chair Haas asked who provides the data to the consultant. The answer: the City. Time is not extensive because the data is kept and updated regularly.

Aracely Tellez asked who this is reported to. The answer: City Council. Bingham described the report as an analysis of where we are, where we should be, and what the national standards are, and as preparation for the impact fee study and proposals for adjusting impact fees to meet current cost to maintain the same level.

Asked how impact fees are collected, staff said they are collected as part of pulling the building permit.

7.1 Realize Las Cruces Endorsement (action item)

2001

Development code last updated

3 acres

Minimum dedicated park

with a few exceptions; roughly three acres per 1,000 people

0.85 acres / 1,000

Current neighborhood park LOS

against a three-acre dedication standard

200 feet

Street frontage minimum

20%

Grade limit

on a portion of the park to be built

50% build out or 2 years after plat recorded

Improvement deadline

whichever comes first

4 to 6 per year

Parks used regularly per person

"recent study"; no source named

$2,600

Current impact fee

$16.86/month on a 30 year mortgage

$374 lower per person per year

Healthcare cost difference

2022 Clemson University study, most vs least green space

about 5,000 units

Housing shortage

Chris Faivre, Community Development

more than six inches

Tree permit threshold

50% reimbursement of the neighborhood park

HBA counter-proposal

Bingham said this process has been going on for a few years and that the development code has not been updated since 2001. Realize Las Cruces is the development code update, covering roads, rights-of-way, landscaping, parks, trails, open space, tree preservation, screening and fencing, zoning and the zoning map, subdivisions, drainage, signs, and outdoor lighting.

Section 5.5 is parks and trails. Going forward with the passing of the new code would require park dedication and construction of neighborhood parks. Instead of collecting an impact fee for the City to build a park, or contracting with the developer to build and be reimbursed, the proposal is a park dedication requirement. Bingham said there are a variety of ways to get parks — one is to go for a bond — but if you want the new housing that is creating the need for the park to pay, there are two methods: impact fees and park dedication. Park dedication has not been used by Las Cruces before, though it has been around since the 1960s.

The requirement would be that developers build a neighborhood park at their cost with no reimbursement, but pull it out of impact fees, at a minimum of three acres with a few exceptions — three acres times the number of dwellings times the number of people per unit, which the minutes summarize as basically three acres per 1,000 people. A copy of the park section of the proposed ordinance was given to board members.

The stated purpose is to ensure that new master plan or subdivision development allocates resources for accessible and usable parks and trails in accordance with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Active Transportation Plan, and any applicable adopted City plan. Parks and Recreation will be involved and make recommendations for these parks.

It was recommended that the impact fee should be used within a mile of the residence. A recent study was cited showing people on average use between four and six parks regularly over the course of a year. Regulations described: the land must provide a minimum of 200 feet of street frontage; no parks located on a cul-de-sac, though this is still being debated between Community Development and City Council; the site must be suitable to allow convenient pedestrian and bicycle access; there is a 20% grade limit on a portion of the park to be built; the land cannot be within the 100 year flood plain unless at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation director; and a fee in lieu is allowed. A trail master plan is in the works, along with open space preservation for environmentally sensitive areas.

Asked whether lights are required, staff said there is no requirement but it would come into the design process negotiations, and that improvements to existing parks could also be discussed. Improvements must be completed no later than 50% build out, or two years after the subdivision plat is recorded, whichever comes first.

Vice-Chair Haas asked what is put in the parks. Bingham said the requirement is the land and the improvements, and that a negotiation will go on between the developer and the City. Haas asked who determines the age appropriate infrastructure in each park; Bingham said there is data home builders are aware of about which amenities attract an older demographic.

Haas asked Chris Faivre whether there is anything Community Development thinks the PRAB should take from this. Faivre said this is a completely different approach that the community will benefit from extensively, and that the intent is to create a structure allowing Parks not to have to focus all its resources on neighborhood parks. He added that the new code makes it easier to build duplexes, triplexes, and apartments to better accommodate the housing shortage, and that at any given time the housing market is about 5,000 units short.

Bingham said impact fees prohibit charging to increase the level of service: "If we are at 0.85 acres we cannot say we are going to charge new people to be at three as it is against the law." Impact fees keep the same level of service; park dedication can raise to a higher one. He said one of the developers' concerns is having to add a couple of thousand dollars to the price of a home, noted the current impact fee is $2,600 — $16.86 per month on a 30 year mortgage — and cited a 2022 Clemson University study finding annual average healthcare cost $374 lower per person per year for those living near the most green space than the least, and that areas with the most green space have lower crime rates than areas with the least.

On tree preservation, Bingham said that unless a tree is dead, diseased, or a nuisance, a permit is required to cut it down if it is more than six inches.

The Planning and Zoning Commission approved with two proposed modifications: asking to delay or remove section 5.5 and address it later rather than include it as part of Realize Las Cruces, or to accept a proposal by the Home Builders Association to reimburse them 50% of the neighborhood park. City Council at its work session did not agree with P&Z.

8. Staff Member Comments

Joey Dominguez said Parks does not have any comments at this time, and that the dog park rules will be on the agenda for January.

Robert Nunez said out-of-school programs are registering for the holiday camp starting Monday, with the last full school day that day. Keep Las Cruces Beautiful is still doing monthly neighborhood dumpster days. He relayed that Mr. Catanach could not attend but wanted to thank everyone who participated in and assisted with the tree lighting, and wished everyone happy holidays and a happy new year.

9. Board Member Comments

Board Member Grandjean said she met people in her district and shared their concerns in a smaller forum. A big concern was why trees are being allowed to die in Las Cruces. Joey Dominguez said the study for Apodaca was done for multiple parks, looking at the current trees and what the proper trees to plant would be. Steven Bingham said the City does have a forester who has a crew.

Vice-Chair Haas thanked staff for all the hard work they do all year. Chair Raish thanked everyone.

Appendix (pages 8-20): the January 16, 2025 packet, bound behind these minutes

$40K

Disc golf budget

constructed FY24; signs delivered January 2, 2025

February/March 2025

Disc golf installation

in house

September 13, 2024

I-25/Lohman acceptance

December 3, 2024

Villa Mora engagement event

about 30 attendees

83% (163)

Dog park survey — Yes

17% (33)

Dog park survey — No

196

Dog park survey — total responses

sum of the two printed counts; the document does not print a total

12/20/2024

Survey close date

results marked FINAL 01/16/2025

Pages 8 through 20 of this document are not from the December 19, 2024 meeting. They are presentation decks and survey results for a later meeting, and the December minutes never reference them.

Disc golf update (item 6.1). Las Cruces Dam DiscGolfPark. Project history: budget $40K; constructed FY24; sign delay; branding and trademark negotiations; design finalized in August 2024; delivered January 2, 2025. Next steps: in-house installation February/March 2025. A tee map and sign mockups are shown, including a "Big Enchilada" sign and a Par 3, 330 ft hole. The title slide is dated "January 16 2024" although the deck describes a January 2, 2025 delivery.

Interstate 25 and Lohman (item 6.3). A collaboration between the City of Las Cruces and the New Mexico Department of Transportation, accepted by the City on September 13, 2024, to create an aesthetically pleasing and inviting view to travelers along Interstate 25. Final concept and north/south side photos are shown. This title slide is also dated "January 16, 2024".

Villa Mora Dam Park conceptual design. Located at 2040 or 2045 E. Madrid Ave (the OCR is not clear which). A public engagement event was held December 3, 2024 with about 30 attendees. The board's options are listed as approve, disapprove, amend, or table. This title slide is dated "January 16, 2025".

Polco survey, "Proposed New Dog Park Rules". A one-minute survey that expired and closed on 12/20/2024. Results are marked FINAL 01/16/2025: on "Do you agree with these changes?", 83% (163) said Yes and 17% (33) said No, for 196 responses. The survey page invited respondents to the Parks and Recreation Board meeting of November 21, 2024, 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. — the meeting that was adjourned for lack of quorum — and gives the room as "Second Floor - 2007E Lerdo Room", where the minutes for August, November, and December give Room 2007B. The free-text answers to "If No, please tell us why?" are transcribed in full in the public comment section above.

Recorded votes

3. Approval of the AgendaMotion passed unanimously

Approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Agenda for December 19, 2024.

Moved by Vice-Chair Laura Haas · seconded by Board Member Charles Beard

4. Approval of the Minutes September 19, 2024Motion passed unanimously

Approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2024.

Moved by Vice-Chair Laura Haas · seconded by Board Member Charles Beard

No corrections are recorded. The November 21 meeting produced no minutes to approve — it collapsed for lack of quorum.

7.1 Realize Las Cruces EndorsementMotion passed unanimously by each Board Member individually stating name and vote

Endorse the Parks section of Realize Las Cruces as is.

Moved by Vice-Chair Laura Haas · seconded by Board Member Aracely Tellez

The only action item in the 2024 file. The minutes record the roll-call form but not the individual names and votes.

10. AdjournmentMotion passed unanimously

Adjourn.

Moved by Vice-Chair Laura Haas · seconded by Board Member Charles Beard

No adjournment time is recorded.

Left open at the gavel

Laura HaasJanuary 30, 2025

Board orientation work session with the City Clerk

Haas proposed January 30 at 6:00 p.m., the only date the clerk has available, and said she will send an e-mail to confirm attendance. No board decision is recorded.

Joey DominguezJanuary 2025

Dog park rules on the January agenda

Joey Dominguez said the dog park rules will be on the agenda for January. The Polco survey bound into this document closed 12/20/2024 with 83% agreeing; staff's September threshold was that 70% or more against would send them back to the drawing board.

Steven Bingham

Impact fee study following the land use assumption

Bingham described this report as preparation for the impact fee study and proposals for adjusting impact fees to meet current cost. The study itself is not before the board.

Steven Bingham

Land use assumption report to City Council

Tellez asked who the report goes to; the answer was City Council. No date for that presentation is recorded.

Community Development / City Council

Cul-de-sac park restriction still in dispute

The prohibition on parks located on a cul-de-sac is recorded as still being debated between Community Development and City Council. The board endorsed the section as is without that question resolved.

City Council

Realize Las Cruces adoption and the P&Z modifications

Planning and Zoning approved with two proposed modifications — delete section 5.5 and address it later, or accept the Home Builders Association's 50% reimbursement proposal. City Council at its work session did not agree with P&Z. No adoption date is recorded.

Unassigned

Trail master plan

Recorded as in the works. No owner, scope, or date is given.

Robert Nunez

Youth Development and Diversion staffing gap

A staff of six against a budgeted staff of nine, covering Hatch to Sunland Park, Chaparral and Anthony. No hiring plan or timeline is recorded.

Unassigned

Trees dying in Las Cruces

Grandjean relayed this as a big concern from her district. Staff answered that the Apodaca study covered multiple parks and looked at current trees and proper trees to plant, and that the City has a forester with a crew. No commitment, plan, or report-back is recorded.

BoardJanuary 16, 2025

Villa Mora Dam Park decision

The appended conceptual design deck lists the board's options as approve, disapprove, amend, or table. Those materials belong to the January 16, 2025 packet; this meeting took no action on them.