Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 1
SANTA FE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Budget & Planning Subcommittee
Problem Statements and Charter Placement Analysis
Working draft for discussion | September 10, 2026 | Prepared by Brandon Vella
Status. This draft compiles the subcommittee's research to date. It is not a recommendation of the
subcommittee or the Commission. Problem statements are offered as hypotheses for discussion,
and items flagged for verification should be confirmed with the City Attorney's office and staff liaisons
before they appear in the Commission's report.
1. Questions in scope
1.1 From the Resolution
Section 3 of the resolution establishing the Commission lists the topics its recommendations must
address. Three are assigned to this subcommittee:
C. Whether the mayor, city manager, or the city councilors should propose the City budget and
what should be required in the budget's development;
D. Whether the City should adopt a strategic plan, and, if so, who should put it forward for
review, and how often should it be updated;
E. Whether a city councilor who is running for mayor should be required to give up their city
council seat; how to fill vacant council seats.
The Commission's report is due to the Governing Body by April 1, 2027, so that recommended
amendments can be considered for the November 2027 ballot.
Each problem statement in Section 2 names a condition, its consequence, and the evidence for it,
without presuming a solution. Each row is then paired with an opportunity for improvement and its
likely vehicle: the charter, an ordinance, or a resolution or administrative practice.
1.2 Committee Positions
- Determine which recommendations belong in the Charter, provide recommendations for
these and other legal vehicles to accomplish entirety of recommended changes.
- Establish a strategic plan requirement that addresses 3-5 year time horizon
- Mandate SMART goals (measurable, time-bound, etc.) in budget and/or strategic plan
- Take no action on vacancies on the council (Resolution 2025-58, question E).
See “Recommendation – Strategic Planning and Budgeting” for deep dive.
2. What placing something in the charter implies
Only voters can change it. The Governing Body cannot amend or repeal a charter provision by
ordinance. Any change requires a ballot question, and the City Attorney must publish an opinion on
its legality and form before it goes to voters (§10.02). Durability is the point of charter placement, and
also its cost: if a provision proves unworkable, the fix waits for an election.

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 2
Referendum and initiative. Charter provisions themselves are not subject to referendum; they
change only through the amendment process. Separately, §3.01(B) exempts any ordinance
mandated by the charter from referendum, so residents cannot petition to repeal it. Two
qualifications apply. First, the Governing Body can still amend a mandated ordinance within the
bounds the charter sets. Second, residents keep the power of initiative, since §3.02(B) does not list
charter-mandated ordinances among its exclusions. The budget and capital program are already
exempt from both referendum and initiative regardless of any change.
Rigidity. Specific dates, KPI lists, and document formats placed in the charter are locked in. That is
why the vehicles in Section 2 have the charter set the what and the who, and leave the how and the
when to ordinance.
Implementation deadlines. The charter's general one-year deadline for mandated ordinances
(§11.02) ran from the charter's 1998 effective date. New mandates should carry their own deadline,
as the 2008 amendment to §4.05 did by requiring an ordinance within two years of the amendment's
effective date.
State law sets the ceiling. A charter provision cannot conflict with state requirements, including the
state budget submission process. Any budget-process amendment should be reviewed by the City
Attorney for how it interacts with state law.
Timing. This Commission's recommendations target the November 2027 ballot. The charter requires
a review commission at least every ten years (§10.01), and the Governing Body can also place
amendments on the ballot between reviews, as it did in 2025.
3. Problem statements, opportunities, and likely vehicles
Each row names a problem, the evidence for it, an opportunity for improvement that addresses it
directly, and the likely vehicle for making the change. The Santa Fe charter already follows a
consistent pattern: it places the allocation of authority directly in its text, and where it wants
something done without dictating details it directs that "the governing body shall by ordinance" act
(for example §2.01 ethics, §4.07 contribution limits, §9.04 audit committee). The vehicle column
applies four questions:
• Does it allocate power between officers or branches? If so, it belongs in the charter.
• Would it need protection from the body it constrains? If so, a charter mandate with ordinance
detail fits.
• Would it likely need adjusting more often than the ten-year review cycle? If so, it belongs in
ordinance, resolution, or practice.
• Does state law already cover it adequately? If so, the charter adds little.
Not charter content: several member themes are real but administrative (baseline narratives
recreated each cycle, outcome-tracking systems, budget software, KPI selection). They argue for
phase-in language rather than charter text.

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 3
3.1 Item C: Budget
ID Problem statement Evidence Opportunity for improvement Likely vehicle
C-1 Accountability for the budget is implied rather
than assigned. The mayor must "work with
city personnel" to prepare it, while the city
manager, the chief administrative officer who
runs the departments that build it, has no
charter budget role. Competing readings of
authority can produce inconsistent direction to
staff.
Charter §5.01(M), §8.03;
SCOPE map (Budget,
Political); model
comparison briefing
Name the preparer and proposer explicitly.
Options: the mayor proposes; the manager
prepares and submits; or the manager
prepares and the mayor transmits with
recommendations.
Charter. Allocates
authority, and §5.01(M) is
already charter text.
C-2 Since the November 2025 amendment, the
mayor proposes the budget but votes only to
break a tie or supply the votes needed to act,
and the charter provides no veto. The council
adopts the budget but does not initiate it.
Each branch holds half of the process, with no
formal mechanism for resolving disagreement.
November 2025 voter-
approved amendment to
§5.01; 2022–23 Charter
Review Commission veto
recommendation (did not
reach the ballot)
Decide whether an executive budget should
carry a veto with a supermajority override, or
whether initiation should shift toward the
manager or the council.
Charter. Coordinate with
the subcommittee on
Items A and B.
C-3 Councilors have no charter-defined point to
shape priorities before a proposal exists. The
FY27 cycle added a January priority-setting
study session and a February adoption of
goals, but this rests on administrative practice
rather than a requirement.
Charter §5.01(M), §6.02;
FY27 Proposed Budget;
SCOPE map (officials
have called for all eight
councilors to be involved
from the start)
Require the Governing Body to adopt budget
priorities before the proposal is developed,
codifying the FY27 practice.
Charter requires the step;
ordinance sets the
calendar; resolution
adopts each year's
priorities.
C-4 The proposed budget arrives in May for a July
1 fiscal year and a June 1 state submission,
leaving the council only a few weeks to
amend a budget it is responsible for adopting.
Budget development has historically run late.
FY27 transmittal letter
dated May 6, 2026;
Finance Department
notes the FY26 budget
was completed by June
1, 2025; SCOPE map
Set a minimum interval between submission
and adoption, expressed relative to the state
deadline. The Model City Charter suggests at
least 45 days before the fiscal year.
Charter (relative
deadline); ordinance (full
calendar).
C-5 "Timely" is the only process standard in the
charter. There are no minimums for
community engagement, forecasting, or
content. Budgeting has centered on line-item
control rather than service outcomes, and the
City lacks a unified performance management
system.
Charter §5.01(M);
SCOPE map (Technical
& Operational)
Require a budget process with minimum
elements: public hearings, community
engagement, a link to adopted goals, and
performance measures, with a phase-in
because KPIs need time to mature.
Charter lists the elements
("shall by ordinance");
ordinance defines them;
practice sets formats and
KPIs.

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 4
ID Problem statement Evidence Opportunity for improvement Likely vehicle
C-6 Priorities have been re-established each year,
so departments cannot plan multi-year
investments or staffing, and operating and
capital budgets are developed on separate
tracks. The result is reactive spending
(emergency fixes, short-term contracts,
deferred maintenance) that costs more than
planned work.
SCOPE map (Technical,
Business); FY27
transmittal notes capital
planning will follow in
later months
Require a multi-year financial forecast and a
multi-year capital improvement plan alongside
the annual budget.
Charter mandate plus
ordinance.
C-7 The charter refers to a "finance committee"
and a "capital program" that it never
establishes or defines.
Charter §5.01(M);
§3.01(B), §3.02(B)
Define or remove the finance committee
reference; define "capital program" as the
multi-year capital improvement plan in C-6.
Charter (technical
cleanup).
3.2 Item D: Strategic plan
ID Problem statement Evidence Opportunity for improvement Likely vehicle
D-1 Santa Fe has no multi-year strategic plan, and
nothing in the charter requires one. Beginning
with FY27, the Governing Body adopted
annual strategic goals and budget priorities,
but the practice is uncodified and looks only
one year ahead.
Charter §2.06, §5.01(L);
FY27 Proposed Budget,
Appendix A (Adopted
Strategic Goals and
FY27 Budget Priorities)
Require the City to adopt a multi-year
strategic plan, or formalize the FY27 annual
goals practice.
Decision point. Charter
(New York, Albuquerque,
Kansas City) or resolution
(Las Cruces, Santa Fe
FY27). See Sections 3.2
and 4.
D-2 Ownership is undefined: the charter does not
say who proposes a plan, who adopts it, or on
what cycle. The only recurring priority
statement is the mayor's one-year legislative
agenda, which the Governing Body
"considers."
Charter §5.01(L),
§6.02(A), §6.02(F)
Define who proposes and who adopts (for
example, the mayor or manager proposes and
the Governing Body adopts after a public
hearing), and tie the cadence to the mayoral
term.
Follows the D-1 vehicle.
D-3 The General Plan has no required update
cycle and no implementation reporting, so it
can remain in force long after conditions
change.
Charter §2.06 (confirm
the current General
Plan's adoption date)
Set a minimum General Plan review cycle and
require an annual implementation report.
Charter (cadence);
ordinance (reporting).
D-4 Nothing requires measuring or publicly
reporting progress on adopted goals, and the
data infrastructure to do so does not yet exist.
Members estimate meaningful KPIs will need
one to three years of data maturation.
SCOPE map (Technical,
Political)
Require an annual public progress report on
adopted goals, phased in alongside the
performance system.
Charter principle;
ordinance; practice for
metrics.

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 5
3.3 Cross-cutting problems (Items C and D)
ID Problem statement Evidence Opportunity for improvement Likely vehicle
X-1 Until FY27, no formal mechanism tied the
budget to long-range goals. Spending increases
have not consistently produced visible service
improvements in areas such as road
maintenance and park upkeep.
SCOPE map
(Technical, Business)
Require the proposed budget to show how it
advances adopted goals, with performance
measures (the Albuquerque and Model City
Charter approach).
Charter principle plus
ordinance.
X-2 Reforms now under way rest on administrative
practice. The City has had four permanent city
managers since 2018, averaging under two
years each, and the office has been held on an
interim basis since January 1, 2026. Each new
mayoral or council cohort can reorient priorities,
so nothing structural carries reforms across
administrations.
Section 3.1; SCOPE
map (Political)
Codify the minimum elements needed for
reforms to survive administrative transitions.
Determines the vehicle for
C-3, C-5, and D-1. The
core argument for any
charter placement in
Items C and D.
3.4 Item E: Council vacancies and running for mayor
ID Problem statement Evidence Opportunity for improvement Likely vehicle
E-1 The charter sets a 30-day appointment
window and requires council approval, but
provides no criteria, vetting, public process, or
distinction between vacancy types. The
January 2026 District 2 appointment used a
voluntary open-application process; nothing
requires future appointments to do the same.
Charter §6.06; SCOPE
map (Vacancies); press
coverage of the District 2
appointment
Establish criteria and an application, vetting,
and public-input process for appointments,
formalizing the January 2026 approach.
Ordinance for the
process; charter only if
the appointment method
itself changes (E-2, E-3).
E-2 The mayor fills seats on the body that checks
the mayor. When a councilor is elected
mayor, the new mayor appoints a successor
in their former district, as occurred in January
2026.
Charter §6.06; SCOPE
map (Vacancies)
Shift appointment to the council, or use a
different method when the vacancy results
from the mayor's own election.
Charter. §6.06 is charter
text.
E-3 Appointees serve until the next regular city
election. The District 2 appointee serves until
November 2027, about 22 months, voting on
budgets and appointments without having
been elected.
Charter §6.06, §6.05 Require a special election when the remaining
term exceeds a set threshold, weighed
against election cost.
Charter.
E-4 Nothing requires a councilor running for
mayor to give up their seat, which is what
creates the E-2 scenario.
Resolution §3(E); charter
is silent
Require resign-to-run, or specify an alternate
filling method for seats vacated by a mayoral
election.
Charter.

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 6
4. Supporting context
4.1 City manager turnover and staff vacancies
Leadership in the chief administrative office has turned over faster than most multi-year initiatives
can be completed. The table below updates the turnover record in the Commission's model
comparison briefing, which omitted the two most recent managers.
City manager Status Tenure
Brian Snyder Permanent (since 2013) Resigned April 2018 at the mayor's request
Erik Litzenberg Interim, then permanent June 2018 – July 2019
Jarel LaPan Hill Interim Sept. 2019, then
permanent
January 2020 – January 2022
John Blair Permanent January 2022 – November 2024
Erin McSherry Named interim, Oct. 2024 Appointment withdrawn
Randy Randall Interim November 2024 – February 2025
Mark Scott Permanent (confirmed 8–1) February 10, 2025 – December 31, 2025
Brian Moya Interim January 1, 2026 – present
At the start of the current mayoral term, the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk positions were
all held on an interim basis, the police chief had retired, and more than half a dozen director-level
roles were open. The city manager job posting noted the successful candidate could appoint roughly
half of the senior management team.
Citywide vacancy rates have improved but remain significant. The figures below come from different
sources and methods (headcount versus budgeted FTE), so they indicate a direction rather than a
precise trend.
Point in time Vacancy rate Basis Source
December 2021 About 20% City estimate City news release
January 2024 22% 1,290 filled, 373 vacant Santa Fe Reporter, citing HR
May 2024 23% 1,299 filled, 394 vacant Santa Fe Reporter, citing HR
Start of FY27 (May 2026) 16% 257 vacant of 1,643.5 FTE FY27 Proposed Budget
Vacancies are concentrated in particular departments. The FY27 position table shows Finance at
24%, including the Budget Division at 40% and Accounting at 33%, with the Finance Director
position vacant. Transit stands at 34%, Wastewater at 31%, and Public Works overall at 23%. Public
safety has largely recovered; the police department expected a single officer vacancy after its May
2026 swearing-in. The phased classification and compensation study (March 2024 through
December 2025) coincides with the improvement.
Why this matters for Items C and D. The division that would build multi-year forecasts and a
performance system is among the most thinly staffed, and the chief administrative office has lacked
continuity. Both conditions weaken any reform that depends on staff carrying it forward without a
structural requirement (problem X-2).

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 7
Data gap: no published separation (turnover) rates, time-to-fill figures, or director tenure data were found. See
Section 5 for the request to Human Resources.
4.2 Strategic plan precedent in other cities
Cities place strategic planning in their charters in a few distinct ways, and some keep it out of the
charter entirely.
City (form of
government)
What the charter requires What is left to ordinance or
practice
New York City (strong
mayor)
Every four years the mayor submits preliminary
and final strategic policy statements covering
long-term issues, goals, and strategies. The
mayor's annual statement to the council must
summarize progress on that plan. (Charter §§5,
17)
Content and development process
of the plan
Albuquerque, NM
(mayor-council)
The council adopts five-year goals and one-year
objectives, reviewed annually, after consulting
the mayor and holding public hearings. Budgets,
plans, and programs must be consistent with the
goals. The mayor formulates the operating and
biennial capital budgets consistent with the goals
and the Comprehensive Plan. (Charter Art. IV
§10; Art. VII)
Ordinance §2-11-3 sets the
process: biennial progress
roundtables, an annual resident
perception survey, and a progress
report at least every two years
Kansas City, MO
(council-manager)
A five-year Citywide Business Plan is adopted by
ordinance each year by November 1, and the
manager prepares the budget considering the
adopted plan.
Plan contents (goals, objectives,
strategies, metrics) are set
administratively
Las Cruces, NM
(council-manager)
Nothing. The strategic plan is not a charter
feature.
Council-adopted and uncodified
(per subcommittee conversation
with Las Cruces)
Model City Charter,
9th ed. (National Civic
League)
No standalone plan. The budget must show its
relationship to the city's strategic goals, with
outcome measures. The budget is submitted at
least 45 days before the fiscal year, and a multi-
year capital program three months before the
budget.
Classifications, formats, and
performance measures by
ordinance or administration
The charter-based examples map onto three ownership models: the executive owns the plan (New
York), the council owns the goals and the budget must conform (Albuquerque), or the plan is built
into the manager-administered budget cycle (Kansas City). In each case the charter settles who
owns the plan, when it is produced, and its minimum contents, while ordinance carries the process.
Las Cruces, and now Santa Fe's own FY27 process, show that a council can adopt goals without
any charter requirement. The open question for the subcommittee is durability: whether Santa Fe's
conditions (Section 3.1) call for a stronger commitment device than Las Cruces needs. Albuquerque
is the closest comparator, as a New Mexico city with the separation-of-powers structure the
Commission is examining under Items A and B.
To verify: whether Albuquerque's goals process and Kansas City's business plan operate in practice as their charters
describe.

Working draft for discussion | Budget & Planning Subcommittee | Page 8
5. Open items and data requests
• Human Resources (via staff liaison, Resolution §8): annual separations by department,
time-to-fill, and a list of director-level positions held on an interim basis and for how long,
FY2021 through FY2026.
• City Attorney: whether the FY27 priority-setting process rests in ordinance, resolution, or
practice; how a charter budget process would interact with state budget law.
• Comparator follow-up: confirm how Albuquerque's goals process and Kansas City's business
plan work in practice, and what sustains the Las Cruces plan between councils.
• Coordination: align with the subcommittee handling Items A, B, and F on C-2 (veto and
mayoral role) and on city manager structure.
Sources
1. City of Santa Fe, Resolution calling for a Charter Review Commission to review mayor and city councilor
powers (Sections 3 and 8).
2. Santa Fe Municipal Charter, §§2.06, 3.01, 3.02, 4.05, 5.01, 6.02, 6.05, 6.06, 8.03, 10.01, 10.02, 11.02.
3. Santa Fe New Mexican, "Santa Fe voters approve charter changes rolling back mayor's powers," Nov. 5, 2025.
4. City of Santa Fe, Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budget (transmittal letter dated May 6, 2026), including the
position count table and Appendix A. santafenm.gov/FY27_Proposed_Budget_Book-compressed.pdf
5. City of Santa Fe, "City Proposes Employee Hiring and Retention Bonuses," Dec. 1, 2021.
6. Santa Fe Reporter, "On the Job," Aug. 8, 2024.
7. Santa Fe Reporter, "City Budget Complete," June 23, 2025.
8. Santa Fe New Mexican, "Santa Fe City Council confirms Mark Scott's appointment as new city manager," Jan.
31, 2025.
9. Santa Fe New Mexican, "Santa Fe Mayor-elect Michael Garcia names fire chief to be interim city manager,"
Dec. 24, 2025.
10. Santa Fe New Mexican, "Mayor Garcia starts term with significant vacancies following spate of departures,"
Jan. 2, 2026.
11. Santa Fe Reporter, "Garcia Takes Careful Path to Filling His Own Shoes," Jan. 27, 2026.
12. Santa Fe New Mexican, "Santa Fe leaders present goals, objectives to City Council as first step in new budget
process," Nov. 21, 2025.
13. Santa Fe New Mexican (via Yahoo News), "Santa Fe City Council praises police for reducing vacancies," May
19, 2026.
14. New York City Charter, §5 (Annual statement to council) and §17 (Strategic policy statement).
15. Charter of the City of Albuquerque, Art. IV §10 and Art. VII; Albuquerque Code of Ordinances §2-11-3.
16. City of Kansas City, MO, Office of Management and Budget: Citywide Business Plan and budget process
pages.
17. National Civic League, Model City Charter, 9th Edition (2021), Article V: Financial Management.
18. Subcommittee work products: SCOPE maps (Budget, June 27, 2026; Vacancies); Charter Review problem
statements and model comparison briefing (Sept. 8, 2026); conversation with the City of Las Cruces.
-