Rio Rancho responds to ordinance violations lawsuit; residents take claims to federal court

RIO RANCHO — The city of Rio Rancho responded Monday to a lawsuit filed recently by a group of residents who claim the city passed some ordinances illegally.

The response came just one day ahead of when the majority of the disputed measures went into effect and as the residents prepared to file litigation in federal court.

Andrew Deakyne, an attorney representing Rio Rancho, asked a local judge to deny a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by lead plaintiff Corrine Rios and just over a dozen other residents, who seek to prevent city officials from enforcing five ordinances until they are properly approved.

Rios claims Ordinance 22 (regulations for short-term rentals); Ordinance 18 (setting the mayor’s and council members’ salaries); Ordinance 5 (updating the lodger’s tax); Ordinance 7 (amending water and wastewater rules and rates) and Ordinance 8 (raising the municipal judge’s salary) were passed by the Rio Rancho Governing Body in violation of city code, in part, because the measures lacked a sponsor.

“There is no requirement anywhere in the rules of procedure that the drafting of all ordinances must be performed this way,” Deakyne stated in his filing in the 13th Judicial District Court of Sandoval County.

He added that there would be “long-lasting impacts on the city’s budget” if the court prevented the city from collecting the taxes called for in the ordinances.

“The damages for the city will significantly outweigh the injury to the plaintiffs,” Deakyne stated.

He also stated that Rios violated the New Mexico Supreme Court’s rules on the unlicensed practice of law. Rios, a small business owner and a former candidate for District 57 in the New Mexico House of Representatives, is not an attorney and wrote in an email to the Observer she is serving as lead plaintiff in the case for coordination and communication purposes. The other residents listed in the complaint are representing themselves, she added.

“When local government tries to silence residents for speaking up in court, that’s a sign something is deeply wrong,” Rios wrote in an email to the Observer.

Deakyne’s response came as the city prepared for three of the disputed ordinances to go into effect. Starting Tuesday, residents began to see a 3% annual increase in water, sewer and water rights acquisition rates, as well as an annual 5% increase to the bulk fill water station fee, for the next five years (Ordinance 7); a tax increase on short-term rentals (Ordinance 5); and regulations on short-term rental operators, including permit requirements and a $500 fine for operating violations (Ordinance 22).

Deakyne’s response also came in the midst of a legal showdown between Rios and the city. Rios had hoped Sandoval County Judge Christopher Perez would rule in her favor to prevent the city from enforcing Ordinances 5, 7 and 22 once they went into effect July 1 (Ordinances 8 and 18, however, don’t go into effect until July 1, 2026).

Even though the city had until July 23 to respond to the lawsuit, Rios announced Tuesday via an online flyer that she would file her case in federal court since Perez “ignored” her filings.

“The judge, for whatever reason, didn’t want to grant (our motions),” Rios said in an interview. “He could have granted a preliminary injunction so the city could not start collecting those taxes today. So where does that leave us citizens?”

The federal complaint, which was filed Thursday, alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution, including due process, Rios said.

“The due process (remedy) is that our elected officials be sponsors of laws and ordinances,” she said.

However, Deakyne disputed the due process argument in his filing, citing other New Mexico lawsuits which found violations of procedures concerning state law did not necessarily mean any constitutional rights were violated.

City spokesperson Jaley Turpen previously wrote in an email that the city does not comment on pending litigation.