Governing Body Study Session — Tue, Sep 8, 2026 · 2.b Council Staffing Study
City of Santa Fe Council Staffing Assessment June 10, 2026 2 2 • Project Scope & Methodology • Commendations • Council Support Models • Council Support Recommendations • Other Considerations • Questions Agenda Project Scope The City of Santa Fe engaged Baker Tilly to conduct a Council staffing study to assess Councilors’ support needs, evaluate current staffing structures, and identify potential staffing models. 4 Methodology This study was conducted between October 2025 and May 2026 and consisted of four major phases (project planning, fact finding, analysis, and reporting). Fact finding and analysis was informed by: • Interviews: We conducted interviews with seven Councilors, the Mayor, and ten members of City management and staff. • Document Review: We gathered relevant documentation for review, including organizational charts, budgets, and governance procedural documents. • Industry Best Practice: We conducted research into industry best practices for related topics such as council staffing support models. • Peer Benchmarking: We conducted benchmarking with ten cities to assess how Santa Fe’s council structure and needs compare to similarly situated jurisdictions. o Austin, TX o Boulder, CO o Hartford, CT o Lansing, MI o Odessa, TA o Provo, UT o Reno, NV o Rio Rancho, NM o Salem, OR o Topeka, KA m Commendations We’d like to extend our gratitude to city leadership and staff for their active engagement and valuable participation throughout this assessment. The success of this work are supported by several commendations, including: • Councilor and Staff Commitment to Constituents • Staff Commitment to Supporting Councilors The contributions of staff have formed a strong foundation from which the City can continue improving governance and operations. '/, .,, Council Support Models 7 Council Support Models Model A One-to-One Support 1+ dedicated staff assigned to each Councilor Advantages - High responsiveness - Strong district familiarity - Personalized support Considerations - Higher staffing/FTE needs - Less resource flexibility Model B Shared & Centralized Support Shared/centralized staff team supporting multiple Councilors Advantages - Collaborative approach - Flexible staffing resources - Consistent service delivery Considerations - Less individualized support - Requires coordination across Councilors Model C Decentralized Support Various department staff provide support as needed Advantages - Efficient use of resources - Integrated with operations Considerations - Limited dedicated capacity - Reduced responsiveness to Councilor priorities Council Support Recommendations 9 Santa Fe’s Current Model: Model C (Decentralized Support) City staff support Councilors as needed across the following areas: City Staff FTE Level of Support Type of Support Constituent Services Manager and Specialists 4 FTE Medium Respond to constituent complaints and coordinate events Marketing and Communications Manager 1 FTE Low Market events and send out certain communications for Councilors Mayor and City Manager Executive Assistants 2 FTE Low Provide ad hoc onboarding, travel, scheduling, and purchasing support Legislation and Policy Innovation Manager and staff 3 FTE High Research policy issues and develop resolutions and legislation 10 Issues with Current Model Limited Councilor Capacity • Councilors report insufficient time to manage workloads--including legislative, constituent, and administrative responsibilities. • Commonly reported support needs include additional legislative research and planning, constituent communications, meeting preparation, scheduling, and event coordination. Limited Staff Capacity • Staff supporting Councilors balance their requests with other departmental responsibilities. • Existing resources are often sufficient to address priority requests, but not the full volume of support needs. Role Ambiguity in Staff Support • There is a lack of shared understanding regarding appropriate levels of Councilor support. • The individual staff members authority to prioritize or decline requests is unclear. • Direct requests from Councilors to staff members outside established processes can create confusion and inconsistent service levels. m 11 Peer Approaches Model A: One-on-One Support Model B: Shared & Centralized Support Model C: Decentralized Support # of Peer Cities Using the Model 2 4 4 Strengths High responsiveness Higher collaboration and consistency, lower redundancy Increased specialized expertise Challenges High staff cost Lack of coordination Managing Councilors competing priorities Managing Councilors competing priorities Coordinating with various stakeholders Best Fit Large cities with significant resources or full-time Councilors with high workloads Cities with some resource capacity for centralized staff Cities with limited resources 12 Council Support Recommendations Recommendation Retain the current Council support structure while adding a centralized Council Program Manager within the City Manager’s Office to improve coordination, consistency, workload management, and administrative support across Council operations. Core responsibilities of the Council Program Manager position would include: • Coordinating administrative and operational support functions Ex: scheduling meetings, coordinating travel and training, preparing briefing materials, and supporting Council-led events • Supporting constituent engagement efforts Ex: inquiry triage, coordination of departmental follow-up, issue tracking, and communication support • Assisting with legislative coordination activities Ex: tracking policy initiatives and coordinating with the Office of Legislation and Policy Innovation. m 13 Roles and Responsibilities Recommendation Observation Roles and responsibilities between Councilors and City staff are not always clearly defined, resulting in confusion, inconsistent expectations, and uneven support. Recommendation Establish and document a formal Council support framework that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of Councilors and City staff and standardizes how work flows between them. This documentation will improve consistency, efficiency, and equity for Council support. m Other Considerations 15 Other Considerations Other Although this assessment is primarily focused on Council staffing structures and support models, legislative and committee processes are closely tied to Council workload, responsiveness, and perceptions of support capacity. Topic Observation Recommendation Legislative Research Process The City’s legislative research and drafting process is critical to effective governance. However, the process lacks transparency, clear prioritization criteria, and shared visibility which has created frustration for Councilors. Formalize a legislative research and drafting process that establishes clear prioritization criteria, encourages shared visibility across Councilors, and promotes consistent communication on the status of legislative requests. The Council Program Manager could support these efforts. Committee Review Process Inefficiencies in legislative routing, committee review, and policy coordination can increase administrative burden and affect the overall effectiveness of Council support. Evaluate the committee review process to identify opportunities to streamline legislative workflows, reduce redundancy, and improve efficiency for Councilors and staff. Questions? The information provided here is of a general nature and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any individual or entity. In specific circumstances, the services of a professional should be sought. Baker Tilly US, LLP and Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide professional services through an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable laws, regulations and professional standards. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business advisory services to their clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, are independent members of Baker Tilly International. Baker Tilly International Limited is an English company. Baker Tilly International provides no professional services to clients. Each member firm is a separate and independent legal entity, and each describes itself as such. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP are not Baker Tilly International’s agent and do not have the authority to bind Baker Tilly International or act on Baker Tilly International’s behalf. None of Baker Tilly International, Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP, Baker Tilly US, LLP nor any of the other member firms of Baker Tilly International has any liability for each other’s acts or omissions. The name Baker Tilly and its associated logo is used under license from Baker Tilly International Limited.