Special Governing Body Meeting
Tue, Feb 24, 2026 · Governing Body
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1401

== Executive Summary ==
The Santa Fe City Council held a special meeting to discuss the future of the Soldiers Monument, which was damaged in 2020. The meeting included updates on the monument's condition, a feasibility study outlining restoration and relocation options, and extensive public comment. While no final decisions were made, the council approved the meeting agenda and focused on understanding the complex legal, historical, and community perspectives surrounding the monument.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to public comments, where residents expressed deeply divided opinions on whether to rebuild, remove, or relocate the monument. Themes included honoring Civil War veterans, acknowledging the monument's offensive language towards Native Americans, the costs of restoration versus community investment, and the need for community healing and unity. The council also discussed the mandatory State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) process and the city's legal obligations, including a court order to address the monument's status. To move forward, the Mayor proposed forming a small task force of council members to expedite the decision-making process.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the agenda for the special governing body meeting by a roll call vote (Councilor Barrett, Bamante, Cassett, Castro, Falner, Faggali, Garcia voted "Yes").
- Council members interested in joining a task force to expedite the decision-making process for the monument are to email the City Attorney.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Approval of Agenda for the special governing body meeting — Passed (Councilor Barrett, Bamante, Cassett, Castro, Falner, Faggali, Garcia voted "Yes")

== Public Comment ==
The public comment period revealed deeply divided opinions on the Soldiers Monument. Many speakers, particularly from Indigenous communities, called for the monument's permanent removal or retirement, citing its offensive language, historical context of colonization and genocide, and the ongoing pain it causes. They emphasized the need for community healing, unity, and investment in people over a divisive monument. Suggestions included replacing it with a tree, a museum display, or a new monument reflecting diverse cultures. Conversely, other speakers advocated for rebuilding or restoring the monument, emphasizing its historical significance in honoring Civil War veterans who fought against slavery and preserving Santa Fe's heritage. Concerns were raised about vandalism, the cost of security, and the legal implications of not restoring the monument. The Mayor intervened multiple times to remind the audience about respectful conduct, highlighting the intense emotions surrounding the issue. Several speakers also discussed the legal process, the role of the Historic Districts Review Board, and the financial costs associated with various options.

== Topics ==
- Soldiers Monument Feasibility Study
- Monument Damage and Restoration
- Community Engagement and Healing
- Resolution for Temporary Placement
- Legal and Procedural Obligations
- Financial Aspects of Monument
- Formation of Task Force
- Historic District Review Board Role
- Public Safety and Vandalism
- Meeting Logistics and Roll Call
- Mayor's Opening Remarks
- Invocation and Remembrances

== Full Transcript ==
Hello. Phase two. Phase one. Yeah.

So much rolling in it.

Rolling in it.

Absolutely. Are you live?

Thank you.

I would like to call to order the special governing body meeting for February 24th, 2026. With that, we will have a Pledge of Allegiance from Councilor Bamante, a salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Barrett, an invocation and remembrances by Councilor Lee Garcia. Please stand as you are able. Flag of the State of New Mexico, simple, perfect, united.

Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you today as people. We come to you today as individuals, and we come to you today as people who have disagreements at times, many times, many disagreements. But please help us keep always in mind that we should respect each other even through our disagreements. And we ask you to help guide us in our words. We ask you to help guide us in our actions, and we thank you for everything that you bestow upon us each and every day. In your name we pray. Amen.

Are there any remembrances from my colleagues on the dais? With that, let's just take a moment to reflect those in our community in need and anybody around us that need support at the moment. Thank you, everybody. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call, please?

Certainly. Mayor, Councilor Barrett.

Here.

Councilor Bamante.

Here.

Councilor Casset.

Here.

Councilor Castro. Councilor Chavez.

Here.

Councilor Falner. Councilor Fagali.

Here.

Councilor Garcia.

Here.

Mayor Weber. I'm sorry. Oh my God. I have an old phone. I'm sorry.

My apologies, Mayor Garcia.

No worries. Seems like we got folks that are paying attention back here, right? So, with that, next item on the agenda, approval of tonight's agenda. Is there any changes from staff? No changes.

Okay. Any changes from committee or council members?

Motion to approve. Second.

Okay. We got a motion and a second. Did we get that?

Motion to approve.

And then I think Councilor Castro was a second. Okay. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye.

Opposed. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. My apologies. Councilor Chavez. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Councilor Barrett.

Here.

Councilor Bamante.

Yes.

Councilor Cassett.

Yes.

Councilor Castro.

Yes.

Councilor Travis. Councilor Falner.

Yes.

Councilor Faggali.

Yes.

Councilor Garcia.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay. Next item on the agenda. Please, Madam City Clerk. This is a status update from Mayor Michael Garcia and Interim City Manager Brian Moya.

I'll let my colleague, Interim City Manager Moya, lead off, please.

Mr. Mayor and counselors, I just wanted to give a status update and to the public of where we stand as of today. The first thing that happened is the city filed a claim against our fine arts policy insurance, received a settlement of $44,109.67 in 2022. Total was $49,109.67, so less than $5,000 deductible. Funds are in Fund 231 and are held for further use as determined by the governing body. So that is step one.

The city received $2,842 so far from restitution from the individuals charged with vandalism and destruction of the monument by the First Judicial Court. We also, one of the things that was done in the resolution, was we hired the city hired CSR to do a feasibility study. We did that cost. Tina Rees is here. She'll be speaking tonight and will present at today's meeting. The contract was $48,675.38. The amendment's going through governing body now with the change due to her speaking tonight. And also in that study, former City Manager Mark Scott added on to look at options at the base of the obelisk to leave the base alone. So that is part of the study here tonight.

Also, in my first month of being city manager, I sent a letter to the Veterans Administration to ask about moving the monument to the National Cemetery. I have not received anything back yet from them. I did receive a UPS tracking letter that they received on January 28th. So at this point, that's where those things stand from me.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moya. And then on my part, I just, as I've committed for my term, is to be as open and transparent as possible. So that's why the Interim City Manager made the mention around the insurance claim that was filed regarding the destruction of the monument and then the restitution that was paid as well. And I bring that up because to my recollection as a governing body member at that time, I was not made aware of that, and I want to make sure that my colleagues on the governing body are fully aware of that, as well as the public, that there are resources thus far regarding some of the insurance claims or restitution that was paid towards the city.

As we all know, as City Manager Moya mentioned, there was a resolution that was passed in 2024. We have now somewhat met all of the obligations from that resolution. We are still waiting to hear back from the Veterans Administration. It was when my administration came into office, we were made aware that the letter to the Veterans Administration had not been sent. And so it's just making sure we meet the obligations of the resolution that was passed back in 2024.

In the meantime, myself, I've been, and whether it was then City Manager Scott or current City Manager Moya, begun to have discussions with the State of New Mexico, in particular the Cultural Affairs Department, as well as our State Historic Preservation Office, because it is my responsibility to ensure that we are meeting the obligations that Judge Wilson set forth in his decision that was made back in December of 2024. So with that, it is my utmost priority to ensure that we come to a solution and decision on how we are moving forward with the Soldiers Monument. There is, at least from my perspective, no predetermined outcome. This is the first of what I hope will be an engagement process. We're not, I am not, I am not, I'm going to reiterate again, I am not proposing another chart process. What I'm proposing is we quickly hear from folks. We quickly understand the information in regards to the feasibility study, and then we as a governing body take all that information and we put forth recommendations on how we move forward.

Part of that process, tomorrow I am introducing a resolution that is proposing to temporarily, and I cannot stress this enough, temporarily place the broken fragments of the Soldiers Monument obelisk in the New Mexico History Museum. This is where we're working in collaboration with the Cultural Affairs Department because I want the public to fully understand what we are working with. The obelisk that was torn down is not a Lego set. You cannot just put them back together and they are in the status of 2020 as Judge Wilson ordered. With that, Madam City Clerk, will you pull up the picture?

So this, if folks are looking at the picture now, this is just some of the fragments of the obelisk. And if you look at that, you can see that you have to actually see this object in person to actually make an informed decision on how we move forward. And so this is why again, this is going to be in public view. Not only we're pulling it out of the storage it's in. That's what I'm proposing. That way my colleagues on the governing body, as well as the public, can access this, see what we're working with, and provide an informed decision on how we move forward. So this will be introduced tomorrow. Feel free to speak to that tonight if you want. But again, this is a temporary placement. We are not proposing to place this in the museum permanently. I know there's been misinformation as with many topics. That is the only resolution that's being brought forward at the moment.

So, I want to ensure that tonight's hearing is a hearing where we can begin the healing process. Previous hearings on the monument have gotten out of control. They've gotten heated. Community members attack community members. And we have to remember at the end of the day, we are one community. Once we leave this chamber, we have to ensure that if we cross paths at the grocery store or wherever it is, we remain community members. This is a difficult discussion. This is going to be a process that not only me and my colleagues on the dais and the governing body have to work through, but us holistically as a community have to work through. We, and this is again my opinion, we have turned centuries, if not millennia, of conflict, and it's been hyperfocused on one object, which is the Soldiers Monument. And to be able to begin a truthful and honest healing process, we have to recognize who we are as a people. And when I mean who we are as a people, it did not just start when our Spanish ancestors came here. There were community members that lived here for millennia. And that's not to say there was not even conflict then. And this is again where I am urging that we are honest about our history. That's the only way we're going to get through this.

So, with that, I want us to acknowledge the moment we're in. When we get to public comment, I am going to read the process. It's going to be the same exact process, but I'm going to, it's a general reminder to folks on how we expect a quorum and how we expect each other to behave will be read. I, because again, I want this to be a productive process, not a situation where we get into back and forth negativity. This is an opportunity for us again to honor our ancestors, but more importantly, prove to future generations that we in this moment took a very, very hard conversation and made them proud. So with that, let's move to our first item on the agenda. Madam Clerk.

Next item there is presentations. 8A is the Soldiers Monument Feasibility Study, and Tina Rees, President of CSR Architects, is here to present.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay, great. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and counselors. Thank you for having me today. I'm here to present the Feasibility Study for the Soldiers Monument at the Santa Fe Plaza Executive Summary Presentation. I'd like to acknowledge the City of Santa Fe, Mark Scott, City Manager, Facilities Division, Public Works Department, Sam Bernett, Director, John C. Dylan, Construction and Building Project Administrator, Historic Preservation Division, Planning and Land Use Department, Paul A. Duran, Senior Planner from my firm, myself and Nikki Brown, Design Professional and Luchini Trujillo, Structural Engineers, Eric Trujillo, Woren Memorials, Lauren Woreren, Materials and Construction Consultant, and New Mexico Travertine, Inc., Jim Lardner, Stone Specialist.

CSR Architects was selected to determine the physical and financial feasibility of options the City of Santa Fe proposed for the Soldiers Monument. One, restoration of the original monument as it was prior to 2020. Two, restoration of the monument without the offensive language present on the plaque. Three, relocation of the monument to a new but undetermined location. That was our initial contract. Some background, the Soldiers Monument was erected in 1869. This monument is the oldest historic constructed element still present in the plaza today. The monument commemorates those who gave their lives during the Civil War and those who died in skirmishes with Native Americans during this time. That was wording from another report. The designers and builders are unknown, but it is believed to have been constructed by local craftsmen using locally available materials and fabrication processes. The monument occupies approximately 64 square feet at its base, measuring approximately 8 feet by 8 feet.

It measures approximately 30 feet from the historic grade to the top of the obelisk, comprised of roughly nine pieces of sandstone at the base. The lowest level of the monument is now partially buried. It has four sandstone columns at each corner, framing the four marble plaques. The monument was damaged during the 2020 protests. The obelisk was toppled. The marble plaque with the inscription depicting Native Americans as savages was damaged. Removal of a portion of the marble slab made it apparent that the interior of the monument is filled with rubble, stone, bits of concrete, and dirt. The 2006 Santa Fe Plaza cultural landscape report by Morrow Reardon Wilkinson Miller, Ltd Landscape Architects, does not indicate that there are any sacred relics or burial items inside the monument. The base of the monument rests on the plaza grade, which is lower than the present-day grade with sidewalks and grass.

This image shows the Soldiers Monument elevations and a plan view from above, showing the four sides. Side A has the broken plaque where the harmful language was present and removed. Side B mentions the Battle of La Glorieta and the Battle of Peralta, and also has a maker's mark. Side C mentions the Battle of Valverde, and Side D has some parts that say "the Union to be perpetual" and when it was erected. This diagram shows an isometric of the monument and the pieces that we were able to ascertain how it was built, starting from the base on up. You can see the rocky internal structure. We also scanned the image of photographs of the monument and pieced it together to show what the full height would have been.

Limitations and exclusions: No material testing was conducted, only visual inspection. No design and construction phase services were provided, but we did measure and provide diagrammatic drawings to fully understand the monument components. All options were ultimately inconclusive based on structural findings, and further structural observation and design are needed for the rebuilding of the monument. We did put together a final assessment report with an opinion of construction costs from what we could ascertain. One reproducible hard copy bound with a digital copy on a flash drive was delivered. Site evaluation photos, monument plans, elevations, and other miscellaneous information collected were provided.

Just to relay some of the options: on the left side is the estimate of construction cost, and then on the right is our structural engineer's scope and considerations and recommendations. So, Option 1 was rebuilding the obelisk with historic stone as it was, as we saw it where it was stored. Reassemble the obelisk using existing stones and keeping the current plinth and foundation. Pros for this: it preserves the historical value completely. Cons would be the plinth base is in poor condition, and its deficiencies are left unaddressed. No mechanical connections, so there's no ductility. So, we're worried about the monument not meeting current International Existing Building Code (IEBC) requirements for structural integrity when performing substantial repair, and moisture intrusion issues will persist. This is the least preferred option. Only consider it if historical preservation is the top priority. If selected, the following plinth and foundation exceptions apply: expect continued deterioration from moisture and freeze-thaw cycles, and the city must acknowledge non-compliance with IEBC, and a special exception may be necessary.

Option 2, we broke this into two different options: 2A and 2B. 2A is rebuilding the obelisk with historic and new material, trying to keep the historic fabric as much as possible. So, mechanically connect the original stones and replace the damaged ones with new material, using damaged historical stones as a thinner face material. This was a possibility to maybe keep the current plinth and foundation. The pros to this are to preserve as much original material as possible, improve the obelisk stability, and mechanical connections. And then the cons would be that the plinth base is in poor condition, and its deficiencies are still left unaddressed. The risk of damaging weathered stone during repairs, including the top stones of the plinth. And this is the second least preferred option. Only consider this if preservation is the top priority without rebuilding the plinth and foundation. The same limitations as Option 1 apply.

Option 2B was to rebuild the obelisk with all new material. Construct entirely new stone pieces. Display the original pieces nearby. That was a thought to just still have the historic obelisk pieces around, and it would be a possibility of still telling the story of what happened. Pros would be to allow the modern construction of the obelisk for improved durability. And if the original pieces are displayed within the banco and fence area, it creates an opportunity for grading improvements to minimize the moisture content changes in the surrounding soils at the monument. And the cons would be it loses historical value because of the new material. Preferred option if the monument remains in its current location. This option requires building the plinth for long-term stability with a new plinth. This becomes the best choice for preserving the original site.

Option 3 was to relocate the monument to a new site. This would be to move the monument to a new site and rebuild the improved connections and new foundations. It would be to take it completely apart as carefully as possible and replace as much as possible back together. The pros would be to fully resolve the structural issues and moisture issues. We improve the obelisk stability and mechanical connections, an opportunity to raise the base above the surrounding finished grade, and the damaged stones can be replaced. The cons would be that the monument will no longer be at its original site. It's a preferred option structurally if the monument is moved because the relocation provides the greatest opportunity to strengthen and provide a new foundation support.

And there was a fourth option added at the end of our report when we turned it in. We added a supplement. Option 4 was to clean the existing monument plinth and replace one marble panel. And that was at the request of the City Manager, Mark Scott.

So the costs: Option 1, which was rebuilding the obelisk using historic material only, we came up with $420,112.98. Option 2A, rebuild existing obelisk portion of monument using historic and new material, $554,279.15. Option 2B, rebuild the existing obelisk portion of monument using new material, $880,090.70. Option 3, relocate entire existing monument to another site chosen by the City of Santa Fe, $1,139,211. Option 4, clean existing monument plinth and replace one marble panel, $79,729.47. And Option 4 was that supplemental option added at the end.

There were some caveats to some of these. All options are ultimately inconclusive based on structural findings, and further structural observation and design are needed for the rebuilding of the monument. Option 2B and Option 3 are the most viable and preferred for the long-term stability and code compliance for structural, see the structural report. And then Option 3 assumes the new site location is within 20 miles of the plaza because we weren't aware of where it was going to be placed at that time. These are estimated costs that do not include any additional design or engineering costs. Please note these amounts are based on consultation with both Warren Memorials Inc. for constructibility. They are stonemasons and memorial builders, and New Mexico Travertine Inc. for replacement of sandstone pieces. They were aware that the quarry that the stones came from was near Lamy, New Mexico, and was possibly the same ones that built the Basilica of St. Francis. And they said that quarry has been closed since then. And so they helped us find another quarry that would have similar stone. It's in Indiana. They included a 15% contingency, overhead and profit bond, and New Mexico gross receipts. That's what I have. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Rams. Are there any questions from governing body members?

Councilor: Thanks so much, Mr. Mayor. I did want to understand a little bit more about the concerns around the base, and I know that it is mentioned either reconstructing in place or moving would be those options. I'm curious about, I mean, in theory, we could also pick it up, fix the base, and pop it back down to fix some of those problems. Am I understanding? No, I am not. Go right ahead, please. Thank you.

Ms. Rams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. So, in our assessment, we did dig down with the archaeologist and Paul Duran to see how it was constructed, to see what the footing was and how deep that first stone was buried. We didn't get to go, we went as far as we could to keep it safe. It does have a slight tilt. The plinth does have a slight slope. So, by putting the obelisk back on top, the stability of it, it's deteriorated quite a bit, too. The base has a lot of pieces that have broken and cracked, and by picking those up to move, they could just disintegrate. So, that was part of the thing, too.

Councilor: Okay. All right. So, it's pretty unstable.

Ms. Rams: Yeah.

Councilor: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.

Mayor: Any other questions from governing body members? Yes, Councilor Fagulli. Floor is yours.

Councilor Fagulli: Just a question similar to that. Is it possible, or do you think it would be possible? I guess we don't know, but to remove the marble if it were to, if we were to change the base, could the marble be removed and possibly put somewhere else or on a new version of the base?

Ms. Rams: Thank you, Councilor, and Mr. Mayor. The marble plaques that are there are holding together the rubble pieces inside. So, it would just, it would fall apart. I don't know what the stability of it inside is. We weren't able to test that or find out. The plaques themselves, though, we were thinking like just that replacement plaque to put back on it was potentially possible. I think taking it, taking just the plaques away from it probably would.

Councilor Fagulli: If we weren't trying to keep the rest of the base, could we keep the marble? It's really.

Ms. Rams: Oh, yes. Those are solid.

Councilor Fagulli: Yes. They're like an inch and three-quarters. Yes.

Mayor: Any other questions from governing body members? Going once, going twice. Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: Could you elaborate a little bit more on the maintenance costs associated with maintaining the base and also some of the concerns with humidity in the soil?

Ms. Rams: Let's see. So, just cleaning the base, you would need a stone conservator most likely to help understand exactly what would need to happen. There are joints, grout joints that are disintegrated and missing. That's how the water is penetrating within the base, and it's also causing that freeze-thaw damage, which causes the stone to just crack and pop off. So that's part of it. The moisture down below the grade, because there is that little banco and gate, a fence around it. It's a sunken pit area, and it doesn't have any drainage that we were aware of in there. So when water rains in there, it just ponds, and then it soaks in, and that's also going to cause problems down the road.

Councilor Castro: Thank you. No further questions.

Mayor: Any other questions from governing body members? I'll pose a question your way, Ms. Rams. So we've got options in different facets around rebuilding and potentially moving it.

And then even if we were to look at the existing plinth with some cleanup efforts, so to speak. Now, this is not part of the report, just based off of your expertise. What harm would there be if it was just to be left as is at the moment, and nobody touches the monument whatsoever? You leave everything on there as is.

I mean, what concerns would you have? What recommendations, etc.? And like I said, this is not, this is somewhat looking at that fourth option, but in essence, not taking the cleanup efforts that are part of it, right? If we were to just leave it as is, what would concerns be from your perspective?

Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The concern would be the freeze-thaw damage that could still happen, the water penetrating through those open gaps in the grout areas. So, if that could be sealed, that would help prevent that from happening. It wouldn't necessarily have to be cleaned like we thought, but maybe just sealed the grout in between the stones so that it would keep it, hold it together better. And then I think you would still need to do some sort of study about the drainage area around it to get the water out of there.

So, let me ask this question then. Given that it's stood there for 150 years plus, no grout, nothing like that. We have not seen the freeze-thaw issue you're raising because it wasn't an issue. It's my understanding that the plinth is completely separate material from the stone obelisk.

Correct.

So, I guess my question more so is because even with the drainage issue, that was never a concern previous, prior to 2020. And this is again, taken into context and consideration. This is something, this is an object that's been studied extensively. And so, I'm quite surprised that through some of the historical studies, especially the cultural landscape report that was done in 2005, aren't coming forward with some recommendations of freeze-thaw drainage issue around the base, etc. That was never, and that was an extensive report done by experts. So now it's an issue. And I think that's concerning to me because what wasn't an issue then is now an issue now. It's, I'll be honest, it's a little hard for me to understand that. Can you help me understand that a little more?

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It will still stand for quite some time, I'm sure, but to preserve it or to protect it, any that would help. So, it probably will just last as, I don't know how many years you want it to last, but buildings do deteriorate in time if they aren't cared for.

Understandable. No, no, understandable. I just again,

So that was just the suggestion, but yes, it could still...

That is helpful. So, thank you so much.

Thank you too.

Any other comments or questions? Sure.

Sure. So, would we have faced the kind of threats to the stability of the structure had it not been vandalized or taken down?

Eventually in time, but I mean, it was still just sloped a little, tilted a little. I don't know how long it would take for it to start to go off center that it would. Right now, the mass of it, it was very heavy. The actual stones that composed the obelisk, they were just there by gravity it appeared, and maybe some pins, but nothing that took it all the way to the ground. It was all just sitting on top of each other. So,

It's probably fair to say that it didn't help.

That it was taken down.

True.

Right. And that did cause some damage to the stability of some of it.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Faulkner. Any other comments, questions from governing body members?

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Rams. I truly appreciate the report and all the time and energy that went into the feasibility study. So, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilor.

Madam City Clerk, can we move on to the next presentation, please?

Yes, Mayor. That is 8B. This is a presentation from the State Historic Preservation Office. Michelle Enzy, Executive Director of Historic Preservation Division, is here to present. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor, Councilors. My name is Michelle Enzy, and I'm the Executive Director of the State Historic Preservation Division and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Mayor Garcia asked that I provide some background information concerning consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office under the Prehistoric and Historic Site Preservation Act. Under the Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act, the City of Santa Fe must consult with the State Historic Preservation Office when the city proposes a project that may have an adverse effect on the Soldiers Monument and the Plaza. An adverse effect includes, but is not limited to, partial or complete physical alteration or destruction, isolation of a historic property from its historic setting, and the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric element that may alter the historic significance of the property. In December of 2024, the city sent a letter proposing the reassembly and relocation of the monument to the Santa Fe National Cemetery. In my response, I stated that the removal of the monument would be a use or an adverse effect as defined under the Prehistoric and Historic Site Preservation Act. Removing the monument from the Plaza would isolate the monument from its original setting and destroy its association with historic event. In addition, the removal of the monument would alter the setting of the Plaza. In my letter, I suggested that the city conduct a conditions assessment to determine if the monument could be restored, the cost of restoration, and the feasibility of moving the monument to another location because of the damage the monument has already incurred. My response also stated that the city must hold a public hearing and solicit proposed alternative to moving the monument. An alternative that might avoid an adverse effect. This public hearing and solicitation of alternative is required under the Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act. The feasibility study prepared by CSR Architect provides several options or alternatives for rebuilding the monument. These are not the only alternatives that should be considered under the Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act. The no-build alternative could be an option. The next steps are for the city to hold a public hearing and document any alternative presented by the public and any alternative that the city considers under its own initiative. These alternatives must be presented in a written record that examines each alternative and discusses social and environmental concern, hazards or emergencies, and the cost of community disruption. The city must make a conclusion regarding the prudence and feasibility of each alternative, including the no-build alternative. This record of decision must be available to all interested parties and presented to the State Historic Preservation Office. It is the responsibility of the State Historic Preservation Office to respond to the record of decision and to concur or disagree with the city's conclusion. Even if the State Historic Preservation Office disagreed, we would discuss the proposed alternative further and determine if there are other options to minimize adverse effects and stabilize, restore, protect, and maintain the monument and the Plaza. It is important to understand that consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is a process. It doesn't dictate a specific outcome. It doesn't prevent changes to the monument or the Plaza, and it doesn't require that the monument be rebuilt. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Enzy. Any questions from governing body members? Just going to go this way. Councilor Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for that explanation of by law what are our options. Go back to, can you re-clarify for me what the definition of use is or adverse effect? Are there two different things or are they one?

Thank you, Councilor, Mayor. The Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act uses the term use, but it's essentially an adverse effect. So that's how it's defined in the statute. A use is an adverse effect. So in preservation world, we talk about adverse effects more easily than the word use. So that's why I just stuck to the word adverse effect.

So it's describing what the term use is, and I know that's referred to in the judgment ruling by the court given injunction decision. And so what I guess my question is, is how far can we go to the point that it doesn't constitute a use or an adverse effect on the monument itself?

Councilor Mayor Garcia, thank you for that question. That's difficult to answer because we would really have to review what is being proposed in order to determine what the effects to the monument or the Plaza would be. As I mentioned, there's nothing that says you that you're required to avoid an adverse effect. That's a misperception. A proposed project or development can proceed. If there is an adverse effect, we will work together to see if there are ways to stabilize the monument, maybe come up with a maintenance plan, revise the cultural landscape report, update the State Register, National Register nomination for the Plaza. There are many things that we can do to mitigate the adverse effect. It's really hard to say what an option might look like that would not cross that line at this point. So, I guess a good example would be replacing the plaque on the north side, which is what seems to be what people are moving towards. Does that constitute a use? It is our view that the plaques are design element and they are not contributing features to the monument as in they're not significant to the monument itself. So, they're simply design elements and they could be replaced.

Okay. Thank you. And then could you just clarify one thing for me in regards to the no-build alternative? What does that mean?

Okay. Thank you for that question, Councilor, Mayor Garcia. So the no-build alternative would be, I think, option four as presented in CSR report, leaving the base of the monument there and not doing anything else to it.

Thank you. I will cede the floor for a moment.

Castro.

Yes. Thank you so much. And I just want a little clarity on the process going forward. So you mentioned that we needed to do some studies around structural integrity. Does this current research suffice some of that requirement or would we have to do an additional study?

Thank you, Councilor, Mayor. I think this study is a start. Whether you would need to do additional studies, I'm not entirely certain. We have discussed with the Mayor and with CSR Architect the possibility of including a stone conservator on the project if the city were to decide to rebuild the monument. We think a stone conservator would be a good addition to the project. I don't think that they would necessarily need to conduct a study, but they would certainly need to study the monument and provide some sort of scope of work.

Thank you, Mayor. See the floor.

Any other questions from?

No, Councilor. Yeah. I know. I was looking for a virtual hand. See the little yellow icon popping up. You good, Councilor Chavis? Okay.

Sure. Councilor. Yep.

Thank you. Thank you so much for being here and for explaining this process. And it looks like we will be seeing more of you regardless of what happens. So, look forward, look forward to working with you there. So, you did mention, I think it was social environmental concerns or community disruption.

Can you speak a little bit more to that? I'm not sure if you've experienced that with other cases. I think that this is a very, I'm not sure that there's an option where I don't feel that social concerns come up or that community disruption. How do you work through that? Is this something that you've already seen or have experience with? What are our responsibilities for how we potentially would work through some of those issues?

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. I don't have experience with that, but in my view, you would need to weigh each alternative in terms of what that means to the community and the possible disruption it could cause. So there's no definition of community disruption in the statute. I think it's really situational on the project and the proposed alternative, and just determining which one would cause the least disruption.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Something I know I'll have to chew on is it's a hard thing to measure. So, but a conversation to be continued. So, thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Any other questions from governing body members?

Miss Enzia: I've got just one clarifying question around the public hearing process. That obviously is going to, has to be a next step no matter what. This does not suffice as the public hearing. Can you just help me understand what that would look like? Let's, and I, and it's challenging to do this because you got to put a hypothetical forward, but we're going to put a hypothetical forward to help outline the process, not only for myself, but for the public. That way, we can understand what are the next steps that must be taken. And so, let's just say that a proposal is brought forward in regards to decision how to move forward. You said an assessment must be conducted and presented on that and showing that there's no alternative options. Can you just help me understand, we bring forward a proposal, what needs to be done in addition to calling for a public hearing? So a decision or proposal is being brought forward to meet the merits and needs of your office. What steps does the city need to take?

Mayor Garcia: Thank you, Mayor Garcia. I hope I can clarify this. So, the public hearing, it comes first and it can be in any form that the city chooses. It just needs to be advertised in a paper of general circulation so that the community members can attend. And it's at that hearing, the city can present the alternative that you already have, but solicit other alternatives for the monument. So, it's those alternatives that you would examine and evaluate and determine which one you think is the best alternative that has the least use to the monument or just has the least community disruption, the least cost. So there's all kinds of decisions that you would have to make in determining which one is the most prudent and feasible.

Gotcha. And so again, just kind of going off of a hypothetical, I mean, if we take into context the amount of folks we have here today, over a hundred people in the room, there could be a hundred different, oh, wow. Okay. There could be a hundred different proposals. Now, are you saying it's the city's responsibility to examine all 100 proposals brought forth during that public hearing, take them into consideration, and I think that that can go in many different directions where a hundred of these can ultimately be produced at the cost of billions of dollars to the city, which I don't want to go. I don't think the public wants to go. What I'm hoping for is a little guidance and insight in regards to how do we on the city end examine the merit of the proposals brought forth during that public hearing to then determine, okay, we heard these hundred different recommendations, we've taken them in consideration, and one of them might be feasible, the other 99, no. How can we meet that mark without going through another one of these? And again, ma'am, no disrespect to you, this is again about process costs of dollars, et cetera. This is something I do not want going on for five years. I want to have this process as expedited as possible, but given the context and requirements we have to meet through your office. So any insight or guidance you can provide us, because I'm sure we're going to hear some recommendations tonight. I'm sure when we have a public hearing and we're going to put that public call, we're going to hear them. What I want to be able to do is work with the city manager to be able to direct staff. This is how we're going to take into context and consideration the merits of these proposals that were brought forth during the public hearing. That way, it gives guidance to my team to be able to get that job done.

Mayor Garcia: Thank you for that question. That's a difficult one to answer and this is a difficult process. And I don't think I've been involved in a consultation that is as controversial and complex as this one under this state statute. So, it is going to be hard to determine which alternatives have merit. This process very much mirrors the process that agencies go through under the environmental assessment, doing environmental assessments and environmental impact statement. And so there are going to be a lot of comments and alternatives that you're going to have to categorize, probably figure out how they maybe group together and figure out which ones have merit. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of advice for you. Maybe seeking out somebody who has gone through that process and works, you know, with NEPA document, the National Environmental Policy Act, maybe they could provide some pointers. I'm happy to see what I can find out as well.

Okay, and by no means, we don't need a definitive answer now. This is an ongoing process, ongoing conversation, and I appreciate the collaboration your office has provided the city thus far, because for anybody in attendance that thought we might come to a decision tonight, that's not going to happen as outlined by Miss Enzy. We have to at least at minimum have another public hearing and then take into context consideration some of the recommendations for alternative use that based off of what a potential proposed solution might be, correct? And do we connect with you? So then after we, let's say we've met the criteria of examining all our alternative proposals, then do we go back to your office to say, okay, we've examined and we would like to move forward in this manner, and then your office would either approve or just take into consideration the request from the city, or how would that work? That I would call that the third step after public hearing, consideration of alternative use, after that, what next steps would take place?

Mayor Garcia: Yes, the next step after that would be to present the alternatives and which alternative you think is the most prudent and feasible. And then my office would review that and either disagree or agree. And at that point, if we agreed, then you would just move forward. If we disagreed, we would look at the alternative and maybe have some further discussions about why you chose the alternative you did. Maybe make some suggestions about other alternatives, taking those into consideration, but you wouldn't be required to change your mind necessarily. We would just have that conversation and then we would decide that, okay, maybe this wasn't the most prudent and feasible alternative. The next step after that would be to figure out what we could do to minimize those adverse effects to the monument and the plaza. So again, like I explained earlier, it could be preparing a new cultural landscape report, updating it, putting together a regular schedule of maintenance for the obelisk, updating the state or national register nomination. There's interpretation. There's a lot of things that we could talk about.

Okay. And so that, that third step, I'll call it, that that's just a dialogue between the city and your office, not another public hearing. It's just we, we then in some lesser words provide a report taking into consideration those alternative proposals, present it to you with the way we, the city would like to move forward. You make a decision and then we move forward from there and we can, your office either approves, denies, and dependent if, let's say it approves, then the city can act ultimately move forward with what it's proposing. Correct?

Right.

Okay. That that's just helpful in regards to the context of the next step process that ultimately have to be taken no matter what. Even if it whether it was rebuild or leave it as is, we still have to go through those motions. Am I understanding that correctly?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you so much for that. Any other questions from the governing body members?

Yes, Counselor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miss Henzy, I just want to want clarification on this. So we have a number of proposed solutions within this report and my understand to understand then that if we went with one of these solutions that this report doesn't count as the due diligence from the city for having explored alternative options.

Thank you for that question. Counselor, no, it doesn't count as the city's due diligence. You still have to have the public hearing to solicit other alternatives.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, any other questions? Okay, I'm not seeing none. Miss Enzy, thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and collaborate with you as we've been working together for the last 60 days or so. I definitely see a collaborative relationship moving forward and with you and your team and just appreciate everything that you've done thus far. Thank you so much. With that, Madame City Clerk, can we get to the next item, please?

The next item is public comment.

Okay, so with that, this is the public comment portion of the meeting. Definitely want to provide a little context. This is just like any other governing body meeting where folks are going to be given two minutes. I'm going to have folks speak to the governing body meeting. It's not the, the conversation is not to be between the public member or individual council member or myself. The actions have to address the body as a whole. As in any other governing body meeting, there is not, the governing body is not going to respond back to questions. It's not because we don't want to. It's because that's the process. That is why we immediately following public comment, the governing body will have its own discussion. Whether the governing body discusses or not, I cannot speak to that at the moment, but I wanted to provide the opportunity for the governing body to hear what the public has to say and then allow for the governing body to have its own discussion or if there are questions asked of community members during their public comment portion, that is where a governing body member can provide a response to that. But I do want to acknowledge that if folks do begin to go past their time, there is a gentle reminder with the chime where so if folks aren't paying attention to the to the monitor and see their time ran out, you will hear it and I'll politely ask that you wrap up your comments. One thing I do not want to see is that as public comment is happening is that audience members respond to the individual at the podium. Again, that is the rules of decorum for the governing body. So with that, no clapping, no cheering, no booing, nothing like that.

It's an opportunity for the public to address the governing body on this topic or anything else. But I am going to acknowledge that it is two minutes. We're not going to give more time. There will be plenty of opportunity for folks to provide input, as Ms. NC mentioned. But this is the first of many opportunities folks will have to speak to this matter. So with that, sure. Yes, Councilor F.

Councilor F: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Also, I think it's important that we take this time to remember that for the whole history of New Mexico, at least the history that we all share, we've been family members in this part of New Mexico. And when we're looking at this issue, the goal is to solve this problem. And there's a lot of frustration and sadness, and there's a lot of strong emotion about this. But this is our opportunity to come together as a community and solve this problem. And that isn't going to happen if we disrespect one another. So when you're listening to your fellow community members, remember that we're a family in Northern New Mexico and treat each other with the respect you would treat your family members with on both sides.

Okay. With that, we will go ahead and have public comment first be given in the council chambers. I will ask, because we do have capacity here in the chambers, to allow for an individual that might be waiting outside to provide comment to provide your comment and step out. If there is nobody in the hall waiting to provide comment, you can step back in. But I want to acknowledge that there are folks, from what I'm told, that are outside in the hall that want to provide comment as well. And this is our opportunity to hear from everybody. So with that, Madame City Clerk.

City Clerk: Thank you, Mayor. I just also want to remind you to please state your name before you make your public comment. Thank you.

Yes. So the rules, per the governing body rules, are your name and your address or council district. If you don't want to provide your address, you can provide your council district. If you don't live in the city, your name and Santa Fe County or a reference of where you live. You absolutely do not need to provide your address. But thank you, Madam City Clerk, for pointing that out. And then I've been informed by Councilor Faulkner that in the hallway they also have this hearing for folks that will step out. Hopefully you can watch the proceedings in the hall, and then as the line for folks to speak clears up, folks are more than welcome to come back and join us here in chambers. With that being said, we'll go ahead and start the public comment portion here in the chambers. Please step up to the podium. And again, please make sure to, as you're speaking, pull the microphone in front of you. So not only the folks in the audience can hear, but anybody that's watching remotely, if you're not speaking into the mic, this is what it sounds like when folks are on YouTube. And I want to make sure everybody, whether you're in the chambers or virtually, folks can hear you. So with that, first public comment, please.

Steven Fox: My name is Steven Fox. I'm founder of United Nations Santa Fe. I've written to you about the idea of having a tree replaced. Oh, District 2. I've written to you about replacing the obelisk with a tree. I still think it's a very worthwhile thing. You, Mayor, you mentioned healing process. What could be more healing than a tree? I've looked into it myself. I did a poll in 2022 of 200 Santa Feans, and 199, honestly, this is the truth, said they like the idea of a tree, not another obelisk. And I brought it to the mayor, and he was the only one that objected. He said, "Nope, we have to have a competition." Even his secretary, Cassie, said, "Mayor, you're outvoted." So this, that's an important historic, quasi-historical fact. So I think a tree, it could be a Ponderosa or a Sequoia tree. We have about 40 Sequoia trees in Santa Fe. The trees are less argumentative, they're less contingent, and they're less costly. They're less divisive, less time-consuming, and more aesthetic, more innovative, more welcoming to visitors, and more comprehensible to visitors, and more healing. So, okay. In 1973, the City Council voted unanimously to remove the obelisk from the plaza. They got bogged down into some historical discussions. Ramses II in Egypt had an obelisk, two of them, and one of them is now in the past. That's a whole another story. I really want to thank Reena Julig because without her efforts and the Santa Mexican, none of, not all these people would be here. Thank you very much. Is this thing on? Can you hear me?

Katari Walker: Hi, my name is Katari Walker. I live in District 1. First of all, I have three quick points to make. One is the historical preservation office. Is there a native person represented in this office? Also, as an actress, I did a movie based on Columbus, or I did a theater based on Columbus's writings. Columbus is not Spanish. Columbus is Italian. So everyone that claims to have ancestry to him should look into their Italian side because Columbus married a Spanish woman. In her diary was the maps from the Moors traveling already to South America. Columbus didn't call us Indians. India wasn't colonized. He said these people were Indos. Italian means like God. We shared. We didn't hoard. We didn't kill. We didn't do those things to each other. So we need to look at that historically and be truthful about what we're really representing. And then, historically, I've never heard or seen an obelisk in the center of any plaza. So it's horrifying to see that edifice there. And wherever you put it, be it a museum or the national cemetery, makes more sense, makes another tourist visit place to go. And if you have a flat directional mural, maybe with a piece of the original marble in the center or something like that or around, we're not a, we're not a melting pot in America, we're a mosaic or a stained glass window. So if you have a cool mural with directions so that we can tell the tourists going east or north, because we can't tell here with the mountains and things like that, but having an open space for everyone would be really great. Thank you.

David Montoya: I'm David Montoya, citizen of District One. So we're surrounded by symbols all around us, whether it's the flag, the Zia flag, our seal of the city with the US flag, and then the Spanish seals above it. According to my 23andMe, I'm 52% Spanish and 47% Native American Pueblo. I could trace my roots back to Pojoaque and Santa Domingo. And so those are facts. And so when it comes to something like this, I have a lot of empathy for both sides of this argument and both sides of the discussion. And I think that probably this wound is even deeper because of a lack of leadership on it. I know everybody kind of laughed when they called Mayor Weber's name, but I think a lot of that blame falls with him. I'm very confident that this council and in particular this mayor are going to come to a decision that unifies these contesting people. And we're in America. So you could tell me as a combat veteran to put the obelisk wherever you want to put it. You can't do that in many countries, right? And right now we've got someone in Washington and the White House who would take that right away from us. We have bigger fish to fry, and I will be able to live with any decision that the mayor makes and that this council makes. But we need to make sure that when we, when we talk about the purpose of this obelisk, it was not to offend anybody. The original purpose of this obelisk was to honor dead Civil War veterans that gave their life to fight for slavery. Period. Full stop. Anything else that was added, anything else that was said should not be included.

Pelican Lee: My name is Pelican Lee, and I live in District One. And this obelisk has been divisive from the very beginning and up until now, and that can be shown by the signs in the back of the room. And it will be divisive, I think, in the future also. So I think it's time to retire it. And I like the idea of the pieces in the history museum at a display that explains the entire history from how it was formed and why it was formed in the beginning, the two guys who dressed up like city workers and chiseled off the offensive word in the 1970s, all the way up until what happened in 2000 and even this process today. I think that would be giving it the honor that it needs. But it's time to retire something that's so divisive, especially at this time when we have ethnic cleansing happening on a national level. We need to be together, and whatever happens in the center of the plaza, either it be totally neutral or it honor all the ethnicities here in Santa Fe, and it's more than three. So that's, and I think this is a low-cost solution. I think spending all that money, we can spend it on so many more things that help the people of Santa Fe rather than on a monument.

Jud Fell: My name is Jud Fell. I live in District 2. First of all, a couple months ago, I came in here and I said, "Please don't waste your time on the cemetery."

Mayor: Jud, if you'll please step a little closer to the mic.

Jud Fell: Okay, sure. The, I did about four hours of research before that meeting. The VA will not accept it because it was a point of violence, and the cemetery is a place of repose. They will not take it. And if somehow you convince them to do it, you're going to have to put up two $500,000 annuities to pay for insurance policy against personal injury and another policy to pay for property damage. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's ridiculous. But getting right to the point, I'm in favor of repairing, replacing, but put it back where it came from. But only if you do something like move the statue, beautiful statue of Catawba and Umpqua, the two native boys, young men who helped start the Pueblo Revolt by carrying the beaded cord to get the revolution started. Put it on the plaza, tell its story, put the obelisk back, tell its story, get some historians. We've got some great ones in this town, some museum curators, and set some pedestals similar to what you see at a scenic overview with content about Santa Fe and New Mexico history. And in all instances, tell the truth. And when you talk about colonialism, when you talk about resistance, the truth is ugly. It's horrible. Whether you go to the Belgian Congo or Australia where the indigenous people were done in, it's terrible. And I don't care what your race or national origin is. So just tell the truth. And the monument is a part of that truth. It's also pretty funny. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked,

Mayor: Mr. Fishell, we've got a line of folks, and we've got to, I've got to make sure everybody adheres to two minutes. Thank you for the comment.

Burl Breer: Hello, Mayor, Councilors. I'm Burl Breer, and I live in District 2. I have sent you extensive comments on this in the past. I won't go through that. But I appreciate that you're here. I appreciate the council's willingness and the mayor's willingness to take this in a forward way more effectively than we have in the past. A lot of the items I raised with you in my comments were somewhat technical in nature, involving the state's involvement, but I wanted at least now to tell you I think you're on the right path to get to the finish line. Before it was just everybody throwing out ideas, nobody looking at the practicalities and the state's requirements. And whether we like the state's requirements or not, they're there. We're going to have to deal with them.

And this puts you in touch now with the state and whatever ownership or rights they might have to tell the city what to do. And it complies, apparently, complies with Judge Wilson's decision. You're moving in that direction as well.

I, despite dealing with technicalities, I think the monument deserves to be rebuilt and stay in its place. It's historical. It lends an opportunity for the public to think about the history that created it, think about it as a memorial, the soldiers who died, and think about what it means. It has an artistic value that's been recognized by the Cinco Pures. And we've seen pictures, paintings. It's been there for 160 years, 150, 160 years, and it has substantial artistic value.

And I'd remind you too, I'll be very brief, there's a time capsule that was installed in 1867 when they built the base. And there's a time capsule with materials in there from 1867. The city tried to find it in 1969, I believe it was. They were supposed to find it after 100 years. It wasn't found. This is an opportunity to seriously look for that time capsule. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Richard Boston. My wife and I are longtime residents of Santa Fe and District 2. We vote every single election. I'm also a retired justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court, where I served for 20 years plus. That has nothing to do with my presence here. I'm simply a concerned citizen of our community.

There's a military saying, the acronym is KISS: K. I. S. S. It means, "Keep it simple, stupid." Nobody's stupid. I'm not accusing anybody of that. But keep it simple. This can become very complicated, but at its essence, I believe it to be simple. This monument was built primarily, almost exclusively, as a memorial to those who died in the Civil War, defending this community, defending this state, and defending the nation in the worst, tragic war this country's ever been in. And the people of this community decided to erect that memorial. And they chose the center of the plaza, which was at that time the center of the community. And they did that for a reason. I think if you reflect on that, that shows the importance to the ancestors, to the original people who lived here at this time.

Now, the folks who died in that, residents of this community who had already been here many, many years, their descendants still live in Santa Fe. They are citizens of this community, and they remember. They remember their forebears who made that sacrifice. How can we not respect that? Other kinds of monuments, other kinds of memorials, fine. That was the intent of this. And if we move it, if we don't reconstruct it, it loses its value. It loses what it was intended to be. I don't see how we can honor those who died in that awful war without reconstructing this memorial. If we do not, we risk dishonoring the sacrifice they made and their descendants who live today continuously in this community. That's all I have to say. I'm going to keep it simple. I think that should be the main point, the focus of your deliberations.

Mayor: Mr. Boston, thank you.

Thank you. My name is Michael Rodriguez. I'm in District 1. I think that, as it's been said here, Santa Fe is a family, and currently right now that monument is an insult to part of our family. I think if a monument is an insult to part of our family, it should be retired, as someone else has said. I think that the plaza would be great if that area in the center was flat for dancing, and on the ground the stories were told in tile or whatever. But I think if there is a monument or a symbol that's an insult to a certain member of our family, that's not acceptable in a good family situation. Thank you.

Hello, Mayor. Hello, Council members. My name is Gloria Montoya, and I am from Santa Fe, District 2. I know the history of the obelisk from my grandfather, Francisco Ortiz. He fought in the First Infantry in World War I, and he would live down the road from the plaza. And he would take us there, his grandchildren, and he'd walk us around the monument and tell us the stories of why it stood there. And in the beginning of this presentation, it showed the four sides, the battlefields that were used. Oh, sorry. Okay. The battlefields that were used. Glorieta, who I learned the history of the Glorieta battlefield from Tom, from Arnold Herrera, a Cochiti native who was a park ranger there and did the tours there, and he spoke of all that had died there. And also what is not written down in the history, or maybe it is if you look it up, 5,000 Native Americans served in the Union Army from New Mexico and other states. And the memorial that has the Union, it's speaking of the Native Americans also. So it's a memorial for the veterans who died, Spanish and Native and cavalry, whoever fought on our New Mexico land. And I just want to say, I learned one more history from a Buffalo Soldier that came to Santa Fe, and I was eight years old, and I was like, "Who is this tall guy in this uniform?" And I just wanted to know why he was here in the center of our plaza. And he said he came all the way from Virginia to honor the memorial for the veterans that had died.

Mayor: Excuse me. No disruptions from the audience, please. And if they're just, stop. As I've mentioned at the beginning of this process, folks have to be respectful. And if folks are not going to be respectful, then we are going to have you escorted out of the facility. This is an opportunity for us to allow for folks to speak. And if you don't agree with the way I am conducting the hearing, I can have a meeting with you after, but please be respectful. And Miss Montoya, the sound did go, so I'm going to ask you to please wrap up your comments.

Okay. So, war is not a pretty thing, guys. We know this already throughout the ages. But there are those who served for our country in all ethnicities, not just Spanish, Native, white, Caucasian.

Mayor: Miss Montoya, I'm going to have to ask you, please.

Anyway, I...

Mayor: Okay, Miss. Thank you. Thank you. I have to move on to the next person, but thank you.

Keep it the way it is.

Mayor: Thank you, Miss Montoya. Next, next speaker, please.

I'm Carrie Wood, District 2. I have not met my District 2 councilors yet, so hello. So here we are again. I don't know how many times I've been here to speak about this monument, but I'm not going to stop. So, thank you for having this meeting. I just, if you don't know, I definitely want that monument gone. If you're new here, but as a reminder over the years, these are the orgs that have said they want the monument gone: the All Pueblo Council of Governors, Pueblo of Zuni, Santa Fe Indigenous Center, Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, SWAIA, which is Southwest Association of Indian Arts, which is the largest economic event for Santa, not just Santa Fe, but for the state as Indian Market. So that's just a handful of organizations that do not want that monument there. And honestly, we should be embarrassed as a city that these Native organizations, the Indigenous Center, has to have their powwow, and they have to dance around that monument. And that SWAIA has to have their event, and that monument's right in the middle when we bring in Indigenous people from all over this country.

And I really want to focus on the cost, because whether or not you think it should stay or should not for cultural reasons or whatever, the cost of keeping it is a problem, because the cost will not end, because that monument is contentious. It will always be contentious. It will always be divisive. We know that because we've been doing this for over five years now, trying to figure out what to do with it. And if you rebuild it or if it stays in any form on the plaza, you're going to need to add security to the cost of rebuilding it. You're going to need to have a security guard there 24/7, 365. So, I looked into it. How much does that cost? It's about $34 an hour to hire a security guard in New Mexico. In a year, that's $300,000. So, in 10 years, that's $3 million. In 50 years, that's $15 million, because it's always going to be contentious. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Neoni Denipa. I live in District 2. Facts that many of us already know who live here in Santa Fe: Santa Fe was established in 1610, is the oldest capital in the United States. It's a minority-majority city. Native American culture is celebrated throughout the state and the city, and it's what brings visitors to Santa Fe, a huge economic driver. This was authorized to be built in 1865. 80 years later, Native Americans had the right to vote after it was already built. Native Americans had no say when it was built, and we have a voice now. I am Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo. I'm Navajo, Hopi, and Acoma. The obelisk needs to come down. It's disrespectful. Let's honor everybody in the state and treat everybody with respect and remove the obelisk. Thanks.

Hello, City Council. Hello, Mayor. My name is Percy Stith, District 1. I wasn't planning on speaking about the obelisk, but we've been tiptoeing around the, hello, Percy Stith, District 1. Wasn't planning on speaking about this obelisk, but it seems as though, as you try to solve this problem, everyone's tiptoeing around the actual problem. The obelisk is racist. It represents a racist connotation. It said "savage Indians" on it. Although it was chiseled off in the 70s, when I arrived here with my kids 13 years ago, we rode our bikes to the plaza. They asked what it was there for, what it said. We looked it up and had to explain it. The adverse effects, when you're talking about adverse effects, it's hard to quantify the adverse effect that that had on people, where the thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who had to read that, both Native Americans and white people and brown people, anyone who had to read that, it had an adverse effect on it. And you can't quantify that with your studies. That's another point I wanted to make. The history, there's a saying, an African saying, that as long as the hunter is telling the story, it will glorify the hunter and not the lion. And you need to get someone who represents everyone on that historic board. I think that's very important. And have the next public hearing in a setting where the youth of Santa Fe, the ones who will have to actually live with this thing for their next 80 or 100 years, most of us will be gone by then, involved, and really help write a history that is accurate and doesn't offend anyone. Thank you for your...

Rick Martinez, my District 1, I think. Mayor, councilors, I've left my notes in my car, so you're going to have, I'm winging this. So I wanted to thank you guys for doing this. I want to support either alternative. I think whatever alternative we have, but I think the problem is is where the plaques are. I want to remind everybody that we live in a multicultural community. It's always been this way for as long as I've lived here. And so we should, we should always be, we have African American, we have Native American, we have Hispanic American, which I like to call Chicano, we have the English, the Anglo-American, too. Here there, we have a lot of writers and poets that are here. Those plaques, those panels on the thing, can be, can be shown with, with, with a sense of unity and and coming together to where we're discussing when everybody sees it. We're all speaking in one voice, which is unity for all of us to to to come and read and and look at and and keep this so to keep this sort of the center of our plaza to where we're all unified as to why we're here in Santa Fe and why we live in this town.

It is very important that we show this unity with the plaques that are on there because right now it didn't show them. If we can start showing that, that monument will be okay. I just think that we have to find a better way of doing this because right now I don't like seeing a divided Santa Fe. It's like a divided nation.

Then I want to just kind of finish off real quick. I wish the state would have been there around when we were trying to pull the obelisk off at 2:00 in the morning. I think that should have been something that they should have been following through and should have slapped them on the wrist for that. So, I thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, council members, friends. Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue. And Mayor, thank you very much for very thoughtfully setting the tone for this. We're just neighbors here, trying to resolve this in a way that keeps us together, that we move forward.

I know who you are, but for the record,

I'm sorry.

That's right. My name is Oscar Salasar Rodriguez. I live in Casada, District One. Again, thank you, Mayor, for so thoughtfully setting the tone. We're just neighbors here trying to resolve this in a way that doesn't divide us any further. And so, I'd like to weigh in on this issue as a neighbor, and as a descendant of one of the aforementioned savages. I know what that word meant. It actually meant just non-Christian. And so, but for us, my culture, I'm the Panipache, one of the aforementioned, I've said, one of the aforementioned savages. And for us, we live in a world of spells, good spells and bad spells, etc. And so, that monument to us was a bad spell. We didn't take our kids there, we didn't take pictures there, we didn't celebrate it, etc. And so when it was brought down, the spell was broken for us, from our perspective. The spell was broken. And so it's okay. I do take my grandkids there. I do, I go there myself now. It's a very different sort of thing. So I would propose to you as a solution, as a quick solution, a permanent solution, and I think a compromise, etc. And that is to leave it as it is. Leave it as it is. History is brutal, both its erection as well as its demolition, at least the partial demolition. Seal it, drain it, leave it as it is, and maybe future generations will be able to come together, think of it very differently, and maybe there'll be an opportunity for this thing to be more permanent. So that would be my proposal. It's not quite proposal number four because I would say don't put anything more on it. Just leave it as it is, seal it, etc. Good luck to you.

Good afternoon. Miguel Gabaldon. I'm born and raised in District 1 where the plaza is, but I now reside in District 4. I guess just the big thing that I've come here before, as someone else has said, I've come to every meeting regarding the obelisk and I will come to every meeting from here on forward as long as I'm here. And the big thing about it is that we must move forward based on the truth. The truth about the obelisk is that it's memorializing Civil War activities. Yes, it's on the homeland of indigenous people, people here before the Spaniards, people here before Kearney, before the US moved in. And that's the truth. But what it does is it memorializes the group of New Mexicans who resisted the Confederate army from taking over this part of the country. So the gentleman who spoke earlier about racist and what could have happened if New Mexico would have become part of the Confederacy, what direction would this city of 400 plus years take? It could have been a whole different direction. But what we have here is a monument. It's art. It could be beautiful. It could be ugly, but it's art. And it represents something that New Mexicans resisted a movement to take over this area and take it in a whole different direction. And that cannot be lost. If we continue to bring up the stuff about colonization, we're on the wrong direction. Yes, we have an issue of indigenous people angry with Spanish people about being here and being in their homeland, but that obelisk is in a different, whole different spectrum. We also mentioned about the community coming together. It's interesting that no majority of the members who tore that obelisk down were not part of this community. They're not here. I thank you for your time and to the next meeting.

Hi, Governing Body and Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I'm Warren Lenford, District 2. Completely unbiased journalist. We're not supposed to do this. So if you, and I mean this with all due respect, if you're somehow able to look past the egregious racism of re-erecting a monument that in any part celebrated the Long Walk or the so-called Indian Wars, two of the worst atrocities in US history, then I don't know, but maybe I can speak to you in a language this town is a little bit more sensitive to, and that's aesthetics. Old blazer rats like me, when we talked about it, if anyone ever talked about it, which was rare, we talked about it in two ways: that thing's racist, and boy is that boring, nondescript, just a complete non-monument, blob-elisk in the middle of the plaza. And, you know, for a town that is so obsessed with aesthetics and is vibrant and, you know, rips off native style and tradition in every facet of art and architecture, like, what are we doing? We can totally do better than this. And so yeah, I just, I want to appeal to that, just like, what was that? Like an obelisk is what you build when you can't think of anything else. And yes, they're very likely going to topple it again. And so I would put aside a little bit of the budget for a new brown box, maybe some stucco, some vigas on there, a restra. Thank you.

District 4. Mayor, nice to see a friendly face in that seat. Langley counselors, what happened to our city? This divisiveness I've never seen. Seems like from 2018 to now, very, very unfortunate. I've never seen that in my 57 years living in this beautiful city. It's very unfortunate. You know, Mike, you know, we, we during the campaign, we had these discussions of what we would do and, you know, I want to see the obelisk rebuilt. I really do. It's part of Santa Fe's history, rich and proud history. You know, yes, derogatory wording was on there. I truly believe that should be eliminated, but it's going to be up to you guys to think about this, to listen to us as to what needs to be done. You know, I'd like to see it rebuilt. I would love to see one side Native American. How do we rebuild it? You know, we, we go to our Native American brothers and sisters. Do we use Mesaca pottery? Do we use turquoise? I don't know. But that's what we fill in the cracks with. Then we go to the Hispanic part, our building blocks, adobe. We fill in those cracks with adobe. Then we go to the Anglo part of Santa Fe. What do we fill it in? It could be steel. It could be wood. I don't know. But then you look at that foresight. Look at what Santa Fe has become. We're a melting pot of diverse cultures. Look at all the cultures that now call Santa Fe home. We're so unique. You can't get that in any other city, any other place in the world. I'd like to see if maybe possibly we could look at looking at all the cultures that now call Santa Fe home, asking them what are your building blocks? How do we, you know, fix that obelisk and make it for everybody? Lastly, Mayor, counselors, another thing, elephant in the room is the Vargas, the statue. I hope you guys look at that because right now I feel like it's segregation. I've got to go over there to look at the Vargas, but yet I can see the two runners here, which I think are beautiful works of art. I think they both should be combined because it's our shared history. As somebody of Mestizo, I'm proud to say I am Mestizo. And I just wish you all the best and I know you got a big task in front of you. So much gracias.

Katherine Rivera, District 1, members of the governing body. Vandalism happened in Prague 100 years ago. Someone convinced a mob to tear down its statue. In 2020, 100 years later, after 30 years of dialogue, the statue was reconstructed and replaced and put up because to that community, its culture was deemed important. Vandalism happens in Santa Fe and it continues to occur in Santa Fe. You go down Burro Alley, the mural of the burro, a burro, a non-political burro is gone because it was vandalized because somebody didn't like it. On Warehouse 21, a city building, commissioned art that Santa Fe paid for was erased and graffitied over because somebody preferred to put their graffiti on city property. Santa Fe's image and reputation right now is one of a permissible city. And that's sad. It is now okay to destroy so that we can put up something new. Now it is your turn. It's Santa Fe's time to replace and restore what was taken down by mob rule. Santa Fe is not alone. Waterbury, Connecticut, restored a damaged Christopher Columbus statue. In 2024, Nebraska replaced the Statue of Liberty because, quote, "It's part of our history." In 2023, Florida replaced its statues. In 2024, three president statues that were toppled are being restored. In August of 2025, Confederate statues in DC are to be restored. And lastly, in Wilmington, Delaware, last month, the city council voted to bring back the Columbus statue because, quote, "It means a lot to the community, returning it to its forever place." Let us all tell the truth about our past as we strive for a better future. Thank you.

Thank you, Governing Body, Mayor. My name is Aurora Martinez, District 2. I'm from Santa Fe and like many, in fact very many, I am Mestiza. I am half and half. That shouldn't matter at this point, but it seems like that's what it's come down to. I want to remind everyone what this statue is about, what this monument is about. It is about Union soldiers. It's a memorial. It is about our history. Instead of tearing it down and rebuilding it somewhere else, let's restore it. Let's put it back to its glory. But let's take away the offensive language because honestly, it shouldn't be there. It is ugly. It's not who we are. Who we are as a community, as a blended family, as a blended people. We are blended and it's not about that. There were indigenous who fought on the Union side. There was Hispano. There was, it was multicultural. Let's bring it back. I had actually written something which I didn't even bother, but I request that maybe additional panels around it to kind of tell the story, the truth, the conflict before the conflict, during the conflict, after, and the defacing and the 2020. Let's tell the truth. Let's tell the truth of our history. We are unique. There's nothing like New Mexico. Nothing like Santa Fe. Nothing like Northern New Mexico anywhere. We are beautiful and we do need to come together in some way. But we also need to remember who we are and we are blended. Thank you.

So good afternoon, evening. My name is Sean Nan in District 4.

Sean, can you please just make sure the microphone's turned up, have a little green light on it.

It's on. It's on.

Okay.

Thank you.

Nan, I'll start over. Good afternoon, members of the Governing Body. My name is Sean Nan. I am in District 4. I did prepare a statement. I am a veteran of the armed forces and I currently still serve. I'm here today to speak in support of the Soldiers' Monument and return it to its original historically designated location.

This monument honors soldiers who fought against the Confederacy during the Civil War. That history should matter. These soldiers served to preserve the Union, and their sacrifice is part of Santa Fe's story and our nation's story. I also want to be very clear: the offensive language that was once associated with this monument was harmful and rightly removed. That language caused real pain, and it should not be restored. Remembering history does not mean repeating our history and repeating the harm. History is layered and often uncomfortable. It involves conflict, injustice, and change. The answer to that complexity is education, not erasure. Providing historical context allows people to understand when the monument was placed, why it was placed, and how our values have evolved since then. The monument was intentionally located in its original site in 1869. Returning it there preserves historic integrity. Relocating it risks erasing context and oversimplifying Santa Fe's layered history. As a service member, I believe we can honor service, reject harmful language, and confront history honestly at the same time. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, council members, Mayor. My name is Mateo Pishino. I'm from Chimayo, but I work and spend quite a bit of time in Santa Fe, of course, and a good bit of time at the plaza. My company specializes in historic preservation, and I don't mean to disparage any architects, but I would consider looking at that budget a lot closer. My company was involved in historic renovations for the National Park Service. We've done projects all over the state and all over the Southwest, and there's never a time where we follow the plans. There's always a lot more engagement in there, and I kind of liked what the Mayor said, "Hey, it's been sitting there for this long. You go trying to fix those foundations, and you're just opening a huge can of worms." So I just want to put that out from a practical perspective.

My family, living in Chimayo, we moved here to support our Native brothers and sisters. And if they're offended by this, then we need to really listen. It's like you walk into a garage somewhere with some of my buddies in construction, and if there's a poster on the wall that my daughter finds offensive, I'm going to say, "Hey, let's not have that here." We don't just go, "Oh, no. It's just a beer commercial. What's the problem?" We go, "Wait a minute, man. My daughter doesn't like this. It makes her feel uncomfortable in her skin." So, I'm going to try to do my best as a man in this world to acknowledge that and try to do better myself.

I just wanted to close with, in Española, we had a governor, I'm sorry, a council member there who wanted to put up an Oñate statue, and the community found out about it and followed their discourse. We went to the meetings. We did our public comments, and everything was good. But a young man with a MAGA hat came while people, mostly Native women and elders, were there and shot one of the protesters there, and he died on the way to Albuquerque. Thank God he survived, and then he pointed the gun at my daughter and pulled the trigger. When you talk about social costs, we need to think about what we're saying when we say social costs because this will not stand. It's just a fact. It's just whether we make that decision now or way later. And as far as Confederate statues, yeah, I don't think those should go back up either. The Indian Wars were happening then. The treaties were happening in 1863. That monument was to honor also the people who were committing atrocities against Native Americans. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors. My name is Chris Chavez, professional land surveyor. I live in the county. I'm going to present something a little bit different. I represent the Northern Chapter, Northern Central Chapter of the Professional Surveyors. We've been following this project because of the attachment the Soldiers Monument has to survey. There was a General Land Office survey of 1877 that uses that Soldiers Monument as the initial point or the point of beginning. And if I may have permission to approach the members, I have a map to give and then a report on the...

You can hand it to the... and then she'll hand it to the clerk, and the clerk will make sure it's distributed appropriately. Thank you.

Okay. What's a 1877 General Land Office survey? And the reason the survey was conducted because a gentleman by the name of Gaspar Ortiz Alarid made a claim, a land claim to the grant, but it was never valid. But in any case, a survey was done, and the Soldiers Monument was utilized as a point of beginning, as the initial point of the grant. So, we've been following this, and it's just from a historic perspective, this survey of it. They did do a write-up on the history of the Santa Fe Grant, which I gave there, and what happened is the grant was never verified, but it went to Congress, and Congress quitclaimed all the land inside the grant to the city. Then the city quitclaimed all that land to the residents if they qualified for that land. So, Santa Fe Grant and that initial point still functions in terms of land, people's titles, and boundaries. So, I approached Mayor Weber back when he was here, and I offered not just this history, but I offered perhaps a sundial at the plaza, and we would survey it in and stuff like that that was throughout that, that out there. But anyway, I just wanted to provide that history. It's attached to surveying. It's part of the grant, the survey of the grant itself. Thank you for that. Thanks.

Good evening. After all, it's now evening. I would like to hand out something to all of you. Oh, my name is Elizabeth West, and I live on Senna Street in District 2. This is for one person, and this is for everybody else here. I have other copies if anybody in the audience is curious about what I'm handing out. Basically, it's an article about the process that needs to happen before we do anything else. And this attempt to bring the process, the correct process, to the Historic Districts Review Board or the H Board failed because the then City Attorney, let me see, I want to say this properly and kindly, made a mistake about a statement, a legal statement. One had to do with the ownership of the Soldiers Monument. It is actually owned by the state, I believe, and I think most people do. But more to the point, she also said, "Therefore, you H Board people cannot make a decision about its status." That is completely wrong. Look in Chapter 14, and in the handout that the clerk will give you, there's some details about it. It's from an article written actually by Pen La Farge with some help from other people, and it appeared in last year's Old Santa Fe Association newsletter. It's in the public realm. I can give anybody a copy. Basically, it says the City and Planning Commission gave the rights a long time ago to the H Board, created as an arm of you all, to do status. If the previous Mayor had gone ahead and followed that process, we'd be discussing things a lot differently. That has to happen first. I hope you will pay attention to what I'm handing out, and I will send more stuff to you later. Last thing I'm going to say quickly is that I mentioned this before, both your body in a previous manifestation before this current Mayor and people, and I also said it to the H Board. Thank you.

Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Michael Moeen. I'm a preservation master craftsman and a local historian. In the county now, I think a remarkable fact is we've taken so long to get to some point, and we're just starting again. We are the only state in the country that has no statewide preservation group, and preservation people who work in preservation and know the protocol and best practices, etc., really haven't had a chance to get together and discuss this. I think it would make a remarkable improvement in the situation if we could have such a meeting of preservationists and discuss this and work out some ideas, and it's something that can be done, and I know that there are many preservationists within this room here who have the knowledge and experience and the soul to do this correctly.

I grew up in Alabama, lived in a county seat, the Confederate soldier, erected by the widows in the 1890s. All of this is so complicated. I suggest the Mayor talk to the director, and I hope I got the name of this right, but the Southern Poverty Law Center. They deal with this kind of a thing, and they have the leading expertise in the country in dealing with controversial monuments, etc. I think that would be very productive also. I attended the memorial to the obelisk maybe a year ago. I forget when it was actually. I was the only protester there. I had a rattle, a simple rattle, and gosh, I was right behind the leading matriarch. She almost floored me with a really strong slap, but she held back. She told me afterwards...

Mr. Mo King, if you could please wrap up your comment.

Anyway, they ended the meeting with cheers to Oñate and Vargas, but then most shockingly, to Coronado. So, I hope you all understand what that means. I mean, it felt like everybody was supposed to give a Nazi salute. So, anyway, thank you very much. Thank you for letting me come up here, Mayor and City Councilors. I am Leticia Montoya. I grew up at 818 Dunlap, District 1, and I reside at Ponan Vista, where I live at my great-great-grandmother and great-great-grandfather's land, and he was full-blooded Native American. So, we're here today because of an obelisk, and I saw this obelisk when I was in Washington D.C. on a meeting, and I saw it being down, and my biggest concern is like, who was in charge? How come he didn't do his job? Because now it's caused a problem for all of us. And he's no longer here. So, we have a new Mayor, which is so good. But the thing about it is that the cost for it, who has to pay for it? Us citizens of this city. Why should we have to pay for it? Why don't you get the people that destroyed it and the people that went to jail? Why don't you get them to pay for it? Because it's their responsibility. They tore it down. If they want it moved, then let them pay the 1 point whatever million. Why should us citizens of this city have to do something that someone did something so bad and violated all our cultures and made us all not like each other? And now we have to regroup, and we have to reorganize it, and we have to come together, and we got to know that we're all in this together. So you guys should be paying the cost. And I see some people that were in jail that were here. How come they didn't get prosecuted? So, I think you guys need to get them to pay the bill, not the citizens of Santa Fe. And I ask you for that one exclusion on what you're going to be doing. And you're going to decide who's going to pay for it. Make them pay for it. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Donna Ria Atensio. I grew up off of Garcia Street on Johnson Lane, and now I live in Santa Fe County. I was raising my hand earlier when Miss Enzy was talking because she was talking about having a public hearing regarding what should be done with the monument. I thought that's what Chart was all about. $240,000. We had hearings and meetings, and they even did a poll, and the majority of the people that participated in that poll said they wanted the monument to remain or be rebuilt where it was.

But we don't pay attention to that. Let's just make another step. Let's continue on. And I want to caution all of us about the slippery slope that we're going now because when we are setting up committees, when are you going to set up a committee that's going to review what is appropriate, what doesn't offend anybody, which books are okay, which history is okay, what's appropriate for us to share with anybody, which statues can we have or not have? Because now that's where we're going. We're having where people are now deciding, "Oh, I'm offended by that. I'm offended by this." The rewriting of history is what is happening right now, and it's happening in Washington D.C. President Trump is actually wanting certain exhibits at the African-American Museum closed or rewritten because he and his party find it offensive. Guess what? That's what we're doing, too. We're trying to rewrite history because we don't like it, because it offends us.

And let me tell you something else. You know the runners that everybody is so happy to proclaim that led to the revolt? Well, that led to 400 innocent people dying. I'm offended by that. Innocent people. So, be careful about what we're celebrating and being offended about because this is a slippery slope, everybody. And I thank you. I've been here so many times, and it was before the former council.

Mayor: Excuse me, Mayor. We can't hear online.

Can you please make sure the mic is turned on? Anyway, I hope that I can ask all of you to please listen to what I have to say. The monument was not meant to be offensive. It was to honor men that fought to end slavery. None of us want to continue having slavery in our lives, and they gave their life to stop that. Now the monument can be rebuilt, and the offensive plaque or whatever you want to call it has been removed. Why can't it be replaced by a plaque honoring the Code Talkers, the neighborhood Code Talkers, who also fought hard for our liberty and helped save us from being under probably Hitler or other people that were horrible people? So I'm asking you to please do not replace it. Keep it where it is and fix it. Thank you. And by the way, I want to say congratulations to the new Mayor and the rest of you new councilors.

Okay, so this is going to be my second warning. I continue to hear, and I'm not going to call you out by name, but I know it's the same offender. If I continue to hear this individual disrupting the proceedings again, I will have you escorted from the chamber. So, this is your last warning, and you know who you are. Please proceed.

Councilor: Mayor, my name's Wor Dominguez. My great-grandfather fought in the Civil War to free the slaves. And when that war ended, he also stayed and fought the Navajos who were enslaving the Pueblo and Hispanics here. Also, to address the monument, the monument is an iconic symbol of Santa Fe, and it should be kept. I would suggest a whole new obelisk of new material to show it as it was originally instead of trying to piece it together. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you. My name is Pauline Anaya. I'm a descendant of century-old Spaniards and natives here in this area. This is 2026, and we are now in the 250th anniversary of our nation. A commemoration and a time for celebration. We stand on history, and we make history, and we create history. We bring meaning to life. Every one of us as a nation, this is a great one in whose 250 years has offered among the world. It has offered our treasures and our blood to uplift God's people around the whole world. Our civil society here in New Mexico since 1598, too, has been built by guidance and tenets of our creator, the Ten Commandments, and they are the laws under which provides for life and living to the best that promote culture and has for us as we have learned to coexist, though it's about 488 years now that we have our history as a civil society. But we know there is much history before us. But we talk about what society we have gathered and we are coexisting in. Our first encounters were difficult. But it's over 300 years that native Indians and Spanish built a joint cultural experience as others arrived. And we have a very unique situation among us and among this nation. There has always been those who hated God and his laws. They resent self-control, self-assessment, and self-accountability, such as the famous Karl Marx and his associates and his famous American disciple Alinsky, whom also spent his life dedicated to serving a life to his hero Satan, whom in his manifesto called "Rules for Radicals," it's a written book that is dedicated to Lucifer so that they can know the tactics to divide and to conquer Western civilization and Christendom. So as you as leaders, what will you be leaning on? What will be your principles? The one from Alinsky or the one from this nation and the principles that it offers? Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and councilors. Glenn Wel, District 2. Today's discussion is ultimately about greed, stolen land, racism, genocide, and oppression. It's time to apologize for the unforgivable acts of our colonial ancestors and give land back to the Pueblo, starting with the land under the Plaza monument. Any other resolution is unjust and temporary. To use an analogy from another speaker, the monument is a gaping wound in the center of Santa Fe. Any decision to keep this monument upholds the greed and racism that motivated the violence that it honors. If you want to make life better for struggling people in Santa Fe, start by uprooting racism and uprooting the racist Plaza monument. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Shauna Mountainong, District 3. Collectively, if we can just all do a... tensions are extremely high here. We all know, we all see it. The youth, we have 16.5 over 65, 25%, 30 to 34, we have 10% of the census of 2025. When we have our main tourism industry coming to the Santa Fe Plaza, we have this eyesore, a memorable term from last year. Please consider it when we have celebrations celebrating Spanish or even Indian native combined. We are looking over a tower of conflict. We are looking over a tower of disgrace. Unfortunately, we all know what it feels like to lose cultural and history when it's put down on a plaque, put down in words, and put down in a book that we feel like our family didn't contribute to. We need to understand that this cost of rebuilding, this cost of making it better is going to put us perpetually back into danger as Santa Fe citizens, as a community member, and what we consider ourselves community members to be uphold to the Santa Fe way of life. Look around us. Who do we see in this room? We are not going to pay for it. We elected those who will pay for it for us because we pay for you all. Your payments, your receipts, and everything is in regards of us coming to you. Listen to the natives of us. Me, a member of Picuris Pueblo, has come together to outspoken and to say, "Have it over." There seems that there cannot be a consensus between us all. It is time we look past the obelisk, past everything that we see, and we can make something new. If we want to be irresponsible, then consider building a freaking fountain in the middle. Because right now, that's where our water's going. Where is our water? Where is everything? We need to consider what to do to make Santa Fe better. And right now, this is the only divisive circumstance. Please consider us when I say this. Thank you. Shauna Mountainong from District 3.

Moses, District 2. It seems that we started this meeting tonight with an assumption on the part of all of you folks sitting up there and the two presenters that this monument has some kind of intrinsic value. So, I don't know how we got to that place. I didn't hear the option of just sending it to the dump. We've considered this issue to death and wasted our tax dollars on an outside truth and reconciliation contractor to resolve it. Yet, here we are again. What part of "we say no to racism" has not been heard? Indigenous communities have showed up again and again and told us clearly of the harm the obelisk and its racist message have caused to them personally. I can't imagine the pain it brings them to come out and tell us of that harm and not be heard. It is time to lay this issue and the obelisk to rest. Why is the city wringing its hands and planning to rebuild apparently an ugly phallic monument to attempted genocide of indigenous people? When I try to answer that question for visiting friends, I am met with disbelief that a city that gets its living from tourists drawn here by the art and culture of indigenous people and sits on land stolen from them celebrates their attempted genocide. We don't need a monument to war and genocide. The United States has been waging war for its entire existence and bankrolling the attempted genocide of indigenous Palestinian people for my entire existence. We are not in danger of forgetting war. We don't need a monument to it. But we are in grave danger if we continue celebrating our endless wars and racism. Please take that ugly, hurtful thing to the dump.

Please. No additional comments.

Hi, Mayor Garcia and Santa Fe City Councilors. And hello, fellow Santa Feans. My name is Elena Valdez. I live in District 3. Woohoo. There's about two of us here. District 3. I'm a Novo Mexicana born here in Santa Fe, graduate of the local public schools. I'm a daughter, a wife of a veteran, and a mother. I'm also an educator, and I'm also a scholar. Some might consider me a type of cultural preservationist. I do not support the rebuilding of the Soldiers Monument. And I suppose I'm here today to reject the narrative that the monument represents. I'm real tired of hearing the narrative that the monument represents Hispano culture or that it is essential for commemorating our pasados. I reject that. I reject the narrative because it chooses to celebrate violence when the truth is there are many other ways to celebrate who we are in this city, its history, and perhaps more importantly to elevate arts and practices that honor our neighbors, not denigrate them. If we are serious about preserving culture, then maybe we should put our energies and funds elsewhere in teaching our children their heritage languages, for example. There are other ways to represent history, to commemorate our cultures, to honor our unique past, and this monument is not necessary. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Matthew Paul. I'm from District 2. And I want to start off with a basic question, which is what is history and what does it mean to preserve it? Preservation cannot mean freezing a public square in a particular story and calling that neutrality. Santa Fe is a living city. We cannot carry history forward by pretending it is finished. We carry it forward by deciding intentionally how it will be encountered by the people who live here now. The Soldiers Monument has been damaged. The protest, the toppling, the city's year-long debate are already part of Santa Fe's living history. So, I am asking the council to be precise about the goal. What exactly are we trying to restore? Stone and mortar are a particular civic narrative about who is honored at the center of our shared public life. Santa Fe has always stood in the shadow of cultural theft and destruction and has always had to ask the question, how do we move forward into something new while trying to preserve a coherent history of a tumultuous and unresolved past? Reallocating the monument to a museum or educational setting and present the monument's full history. That setting would support public engagement in a way that the center of the Plaza cannot. I question concerns about cultural disruption.

The reality is this land's culture has already been disrupted repeatedly, and the plaza is not an untouched, authentic space outside of the inevitable forces of change. It is clear that the future of the obelisk has been a point of incredible emotional stake for the people of Santa Fe, and I believe its disruptive presence ultimately outweighs whatever historical value might be found in keeping the obelisk in such a central location. I am asking the city to preserve its history in a way that best reflects the evolving cultural context in which we live and letting the plaza serve as a welcoming public commons for all Santa Feans today. There are many qualities that unite us as Santa Feans, and I hope our love of the arts, the incredible natural beauty of this land, or literally any other non-racist symbol that might uplift and beautify the plaza could stand in the obelisk's place. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Charles Rosacer. I live in District 2, and I sent a memo to Bamante and this other lady, Barrett, advocating reconstruction of the monument. But as I look out here or look over here, this is the USS Santa Fe, right? Well, I come here quite conflicted because the man who made the statue of Tatawa and Atoa is genetically, although he is Tewa, a member of Pawake Pueblo, is also genetically tied to me, as was this young man, Segoeno Lightning Boy. As I look out, Christina,

Mr. Rosacer, please, please, you only address the governing body.

I am conflicted here, and after listening to Oscar say, and I think I've had this dialogue with other people, that the ruined soldiers' monument is also the history of this community, and the Native American way of expressing that they were exploited perhaps, and maybe it should be just left the way it is. There's much that could be done with the plaza. One thing that I thought about, maybe you don't know about Weiwa. Okay, I can't dance. But anyway,

That means please wrap up the comments though, please.

Okay. But if we could leave it as is, where it is, it also represents today's history, and we are the history today of this community. As I look out at the individuals in the audience, I am conflicted.

Mr. Rosacer, if you'll please wrap up the comments, your time is seated.

Because I feel all of these people are part of my extended family. Thank you for your time, and I hope we can go forward in a positive way. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Lauren Lieb. I am a resident of District 1. And I just want to express my vehement opposition to rebuilding the monument, the obelisk. I think it should be torn down, fully paved over. I want to go over some practical matters, like it is an eyesore. It is ugly, and it does really prevent a full community gathering when we do have events that should be bringing people together right at the bandstand. Other events, it blocks a whole, like a significant part of the plaza. And we should just really be figuring out how to build bike parking and not this dumb monument.

Also, I don't think the feasibility study really considered or evaluated the material and structural findings of those other options. So, I think you would probably want to add another couple hundred thousand. And so I don't really think that those numbers as is are an accurate reflection of the cost, not to mention the cost of having to rebuild it again and again and again, because I can tell you people will tear it down again and again and again until everyone gets the point.

I also just want to say that this is really not about disrespecting veterans. I care deeply about veterans, and I think that there are ways to honor those who had to fight and die for rich men's wars and land grabs. We can honor our veterans who are still alive today by devoting more resources to support them in our city to make the city more habitable. That's how we respect the dead as we fight for the living.

I also just want to acknowledge that in this moment, if you were to resurrect the monument, in a time when this presidential administration is once again dehumanizing whole communities and blatantly advancing white supremacist policies, also talking, I mean, Marco Rubio talking about white saving white civilization in Munich just a couple weeks ago. We have to understand that rebuilding it too is an action that must be understood in a historical context and the message that sends to all of us in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in our state and nationally, and it's not our land. So, we should be prioritizing the indigenous communities whose land we stole. Thank you.

With this, with the clapping, with the snapping, it's the same as laughing and joking and sneering. So, please stop. Go ahead.

Hey, I'm David Sloan from District 2. Congratulations, Mayor Garcia, on your new position and everybody else in the counselors. In 1863, Navajos were being attacked by U.S. troops in Fort Defiance, which is in Arizona. They finally, the reason it's called Fort Defiance is because there's a big Navajo uprising, and that's like when they really attacked and they took over that whole fort. In turn, that's when Kit Carson came around and rounded up everybody. I was just out in Canyon de Chelly in Chinle, Arizona. And there's a place called Massacre Cave where a few people were trying to get away. They were staying in a cave, and it's mostly women and children. And all these soldiers came up and started shooting at them, killing tons. That's why it's called Massacre Cave. So, it's like any sort of monument that honors people who are shooting women and children, I think you should probably see a psychiatrist. It's not cool. So, that's why I'm here. And I grew up here. I was born here all my life. All that, my belly button's buried here. So, I know all the people think Navajos are, oh, they're far away. It's like we had, we had names for all the pueblos because we trade with them. It wasn't like nobody could steal and enslave other tribes because we didn't have horses. That came along later after colonization. So, I think people need to really understand that history and understand that it's attacking people who were basically just chilling out, and that's just like the Western colonization stuff that really sad about that. So, that's

Mr. Mayor, counselors, my name is Eddie Romero. I'm a lifelong resident of Santa Fe. I reside in District 2. There's a lot of arguments going on here today. Mr. Mayor and counselors, you've heard this for five years. Stop the bleeding. Enough is enough. You, the elected officials, we do respect, and the prior administration opened these gates when you let public people come into public hearings and complain about our history. We all have history. We should not apologize for our history. Our community has been under assault for many, many years. We have lived in peace with our native tribal Indians for centuries. It was only the last five years when you saw all this aggravation coming. I've lived here all my life. I've never seen this. This is not a zoning question of whether it's too high or it's too low or whether it's too far or too close. This is an attack on our history, our heritage, and you, the elected officials, need to stop the bleeding. Now, this time is better spent by you all going after those who created the problem, establishing laws that will prevent this from happening again, and prosecuting those people. Put guardrails around the city so that this doesn't happen again. But you got to stop this attack on our heritage. If you bring it to public hearing, you're going to get the same dialogue. Local heritage needs to be preserved, and that should be a priority in this agenda. Thank you.

Juniper Anderson Yianicia, I'm from District 1. I, Juniper Anderson. Yes. I would first like to start by saying I think it is actually really important to apologize for your history. An elder earlier at this podium mentioned how this is going to be paid for and really worried about that and wanting certain people to pay for it. I think it's important to acknowledge that everybody who lives here is benefiting from the exploitation and erasure of indigenous people. So, I think it is absolutely the responsibility of the people of Santa Fe to pay for this. This monument, people I guess really like it. I guess I don't know. But the history is in the people here, and clearly the indigenous people are not happy with this monument. So, it doesn't, I don't think it's that hard to understand that maybe don't have it. I also agree that being able to see the entire plaza is a really good idea. I also would really like it if I didn't have to dance around a phallic symbol of colonization every Indigenous Peoples' Day. Thank you.

Sorry. Good evening. My name is Pen Lafarge. I live at 647 Old Santa Fe Trail in District 2. First, I want to say to the mayor and city counselors, thank you very much for having this discussion and for trying to resolve the thorn in our side that has been here for too long. It's a brave and but necessary act. I want to address two things that have been said before. Two previous speakers have spoken of retiring the monument, and other speakers have spoken about the truth. It is important that the monument, in my opinion, be restored as closely as possible to its original state. Now, if that means that the monument needs to be rebuilt with new material for it to have integrity, physical integrity, and to stand, I think that's acceptable. Otherwise, it should be restored as fully as possible to its original state. One does not retire the monument for the same reason one does not retire the truth or history or integrity. One keeps the truth and integrity in history and heritage as part of one's life. And as far as history goes, truth is in fact important. People have spoken about the truth. The truth is that as my father, Oliver Lafarge, noted in his Sunday column in the early 1960s, monument, he defended the monument against an earlier attempt to tear it down, and he had defended the integrity of the monument as far as the truth goes about savage Indians. Well, I'm sorry, but there's more. I do think that the integrity of the monument and the truth of what the monument stands for is the most important thing and cannot be retired.

Thank you, Mayor and counselors. My name is Barbara Fix. I'm from the Baca neighborhood in District 1. What Pim was about to talk about, I think, was the history of who were the savages, who did that word apply to, and it was from the nomadic Indians. There was, the reality is war is hell, and that our species has fought constantly against each other, and this is the time to realize that maybe the truth will make us free. That this monument to those who defended this country against Confederacy and against slavery, that's what the monument's heart is about. The inscription of the territorial wars against the savage Indians was is a, please, please, hey, hey, hey, please, please, please, please, it's, it's, it's in, please.

I'm going to stand for a five-minute recess. Whatever. Well, okay, I'm going to reconvene from the break. Excuse me, audience, please, please. We, we, we have to proceed. We have a lot of work ahead of us. I do want to remind folks, be respectful, be mindful, and make sure that we're using words, language that are in no way offensive to anybody. It's our responsibility as a community, not just the governing body, their responsibility as a community, as I mentioned earlier, that once we leave these chambers, whenever we see each other next again, we're not going to be offended by what somebody said in, in the sense that we are using words that are kind, that are respectful, but still utilizing our First Amendment rights to discuss this very important, this very divisive, and this very traumatic conversation we have to deal with.

But when we do so in a manner that is not acknowledging words, actions, any type of behavior that is disrespectful to our neighbors, it's completely undermining the process which we're trying to go through, which will allow us to come to a solution on this very challenging issue. So, with that, I do not know how much time was up. I'll cede you a minute. I think you were probably close to a minute time frame.

**Speaker:** I was just beginning, but whatever.

**Speaker:** Okay. Well, let's do a minute and a half, but please make sure once the chime starts, that means wrap it up. Okay. Thank you.

**Speaker:** Thank you for listening to all of us. It's important that we all listen to each other. I just had a discussion with a young man next to me talking about what that word meant. Maybe we could call it the sword. No matter what, it's a word that has a deep hurt to it, and I did not intend that. War is hell. Soldiers on either side, and the civilians and the people, they all suffer. And it's something that we humans have memorials to. That's why we have the monument. It saddens me that that word that was carved out, the sword, that it seems to have been taken to have contaminated the rest of that monument. Perhaps I suggested that if it had instead said, "To all those who fought in the territorial wars, no matter what side, are to be honored here." That's the human reality that war is hell. And one example for us could be, there's been talk of moving the monument to the National Cemetery. Go there to the old part of the cemetery where Union soldiers are buried from, I believe, from the Battle of Glorieta. And about a couple of decades ago, a man was going to build a garage and he found the bodies of Confederate soldiers who had died at the Battle of Glorieta. And they searched for the descendants and they found some of them could be identified, and those families, the descendants, received those bodies and buried them in their own cemeteries.

**Speaker:** Thank you, Miss Fix. I'm sure that those are buried there, the Confederate bodies.

**Speaker:** Thank you, your time has run up. I appreciate it.

**Speaker:** Hello and good evening, everybody. My name is Jerome Morrison. I'm a resident and homeowner in District 2, Hopewell, man. Hello, neighbors. So, I'm the son of a Navy chaplain after 30 years. So, I'm a preacher's kid and a Navy brat. I was in Japan when 9/11 happened, so I got to see a lot of my friends' parents go off to war as a young kid. I'm fascinated by the history of this thing, of this obelisk, because especially when I was told that this is the only monument that was dedicated to Union soldiers that fell, I found that I was like, "Wait, there's something, there's something very interesting here." So, what is the complication that's happening? So, I went to talk to two state historians, former state historians, Estevan Rael-Gálvez and Robert Martinez. So, some quick facts about the obelisk that I've learned. The monument was built in 1867, 1866-68 legislators. Two of those sides were dedicated to soldiers who died. The original intent was to raise money so that we could move the soldiers from graves that were at those battles and to protect them from grave robbers. The Confederates wanted New Mexico. The Confederates wanted New Mexico because they actually wanted to get to Colorado to get gold because the Confederates were running out of money. Also, the Confederates looked at New Mexico and they saw a system of slavery here and they were like, "Ooh, this is going to be very easy for us to put our slavery on here." At the time that the monument was dedicated, it was Colorado infantry that came down to visit, to for the commemoration. I can't find any evidence of what New Mexicans actually participated. The legislators who are dedicated on the plinth, half of them owned indigenous slaves. Estevan Rael-Gálvez of Native Bound Unbound Project, talk to him about this for more or see their website. About the Indian Wars, Dr. Gálvez also told me about the Doolittle Commission, which was a U.S. Congressional Committee formed in March 1865 to investigate the mistreatment of Native Americans and corruptions among the Indian agents. 50 interviews were had. Among those was an interview with Archbishop Lamy and Padre Martinez. And they came away with that commission that the system of slavery here was every bit as bad as the slavery against my people, the Gullah in South Carolina. So, slavery wasn't over. Also, slavery wasn't over in New Mexico until like the early 1900s. I think we have some people like had grandparents and great-grandparents alive today that knew who those folks were. So, to say that this was about Buffalo Soldiers also, I also can't find any evidence of that. The Buffalo Soldiers weren't commissioned until 1865 or so, but they weren't in New Mexico until 1875. So, yes, they did participate in the Indian Wars, but I can't find anything prior to the obelisk. So, that's one point that's also been bugging me a lot. I can't, I can't find it. So, if you can find Buffalo Soldiers in New Mexico before this obelisk, please do send it my way. One final thing, it's that whenever cities don't want people to gather in a space, they will create hostile architecture. And it seems like that's what happened several hundred, like in those 1800s, was to stop the gatherings from happening in that plaza. Hostile architecture, it feels like, is what that exists as to help the colonizing movement, to Anglicize New Mexico. I have more to say.

**Speaker:** Mr. Morrison, thank you.

**Speaker:** Hi. My name is Lisa Faust and I am registered in District 2. I grew up here in Santa Fe. The city is my home and that's why I'm asking the council to not restore the obelisk. I'm asking for it to take it down. The monument is racist and it always has been. And rebuilding it means we are choosing to put it back up knowing full well the harm it causes. That's not what I want my city to do. We live on lands with a deep and painful history of genocide, colonization, and displacement. The very least we can do is listen to the indigenous people who are part of this community and who have been very clear about how they feel. Their voices need to be centered in this conversation. And honestly, whatever the restoration would cost, there are so many better ways to spend that money. Ways that actually bring people together and heal and invest in the community that we want to be. Restoring the obelisk in the plaza or anywhere else sends a clear message that some people's pain is worth less than a piece of stone. Regardless of if the obelisk is restored or removed, history won't change. But it does have a harmful impact on a community that was here originally. I'm asking for you to remove the obelisk and start making reparations to the indigenous community that are the true stewards of this land. Thank you.

**Speaker:** I'll yield my time to Jerome. Sorry, there's no rule against that. That might change in the future, but there's a rule against that right now.

**Speaker:** I was also going to yield my time to Jerome. My name is Camila Cluit. I'm a resident of Casa Alegre in District 1 and a public school teacher. I love how many familiar faces I see in this room tonight. I could go on and on about the cultural importance of removing this obelisk, the wasteful spending, etc., but a lot of people said that better than I can. I go to lots of concerts on the plaza and it's one of my favorite events held in Santa Fe. The monument is not only an eyesore, but hinders the experience of those events. Keep the benches around the outside. Maybe put in a placard honoring the ridiculous history of this monument and the resistance that finally led to its removal and keep the slabs in the State History Museum. Add more bike racks and make concerts more enjoyable. Lastly, these chairs are not comfortable enough for these meetings to continue. I yield my time. Hi, my name is Lisa Cat. That's with a C. I'm in District 4 and I am a preschool teacher and I'm afraid I do not have elegant words like everyone else does. But I do want to let you know that I teach a rainbow classroom. I have preschool to second grade. And I just want to let you know that their biggest thing is that we take care of each other and we take care of ourselves. And in my classroom, I do have a student who is participating in the hoop dance. And he has been sharing that with his students. He's 5 years old. He does this hoop dance at the plaza. We already know that this statue has a history that is uncomfortable for my student. And I'm a mama bear when that happens. When he goes to dance his hoop dance, there should not be something there that has the history that is hurting somebody. In my classroom, it is we take care of each other and we take care of ourselves. They would actually be offended if they knew there was something that was hurting one of their classroom members.

**Speaker:** Hi, my name is Herb Smith. I live in District 1. When my wife and I first visited Santa Fe in the 1980s, I thought that that obelisk was the worst damn thing I ever laid eyes on. As a monument, it sucks. Why then am I here asking you to put it back? There's a reason, because it stands for something. It's not, it stands for what those army troops did during the Civil War. They did the most important thing that any soldier does. Forget the recruiting spiel. Your job as a soldier is to take a bullet for civilians. That's what they did. They took bullets, all those troops. And in 1867 and '8, when they were conceiving this monument, it was that reason. It wasn't to disparage anybody. It was to honor those people. And good God, if you tear it down and don't replace it, what on Guadalupe Street, before they put the Vadum Museum, there was a building there that said, "If you don't remember your history, you'll repeat it again." The Civil War was about maintaining the Union and it's being tested again and it will be tested 20 and 40 and 100 years from now. Don't take away those memories because they're extremely important. Thank you.

**Speaker:** Hello. My name is Frank Montano. I'm a resident of District 1 and for 12 years I proudly served as a City Counselor in District 3. Back in 1999, I was assigned by then Mayor Delgado to chair, be a chairman of a committee to make improvements to the plaza. And at that time, one of the suggestions that came up was to remove the obelisk. Quite frankly, it was a suggestion I supported. However, when discussion of that idea came up, it was immediately scrapped because of outcry of a good majority of the community who did not want to see that happen. I lived with that. I accepted it. And I think it was wrong for people to have decided upon themselves to bring it down. I don't envy the decision that you have to make, but I will live with it. Whatever decision you make, because that's what we should do as a society in a democracy. We should try to make the best decisions that we can but live with the decisions that are made hoping that they are the right decisions. And so, I think that there is value in the obelisk. There's a lot to learn from it. One of the greatest lessons we can probably learn from it is how we can all get along regardless of how we feel about what it is one way or the other, that the obelisk is one way or the other. So, I'm here to support the reconstruction of the obelisk and bring back the three-minute rule. She only gave me two. Good evening. Is everyone awake? For those of you who don't know me, my name is Suzanne Romero, District 1. Congratulations, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Pro Tem Mayor. Congratulations, council members. New year, new beginnings. Tonight has been something else.

And for a woman who can only get along with her stick, it has been painful. Now, let me tell you, there was a young lady that was crying just a little bit ago because of the sword, and I understand how she felt. Let me tell you why. Because on October of 2020, when the soldiers' monument was destroyed, I cried and I cried and I cried because this could not be happening in my Santa Fe. My parents are from here, my grandparents are from here, and their parents and their grandparents. It was never brought to my attention that it was anti-indigenous, anti-native. That one plaque that was there, we all know, should have never been there. So I ask this body, when it does come time to vote, to vote for a complete rebuild so that it can withstand the test of time.

Now, I do have some other issues with two of our counselors, and I know we're not supposed to bring them up, but it's important regarding this issue. One of our counselors previously worked for who was then the city attorney. And when she worked for the city attorney, she had information, and I do not think that this counselor should be allowed to vote on any issues regarding this. And I'm just going to finish up with the other counselor who has brought up violence in the streets. I have her exact words as she has called for violence in the streets of Santa Fe. I sent an email to every one of you counselors, and this person should also recuse herself from voting anything regarding this issue. And I am done. I wish you well. God bless you, and we'll move forward as one people.

Hello, hello. Is that right? My name is Amy Christian, and I'm a resident of District 1. I've been to these council meetings over and over again through the years, as many people have. And I feel like a lot of people have been super eloquent, and I just want to point out what I'm witnessing and what I've witnessed over and over again, which is that every time I come, I see the indigenous people of this land and their children, many times, clearly stating in an infinite variety of ways the harms that they have had to endure due to this monument being in the center of our community. I've also witnessed people over and over again telling indigenous people from this land how they should feel about it, how they should feel pride in this monument. You can't tell somebody how they should feel. If they're feeling harmed by something, you need to listen. I think we're all experiencing that watching the women who have come forward in the Epstein files that we're all, "Hey, maybe we should have been listening, right?" So, here we are.

I've also learned something tonight that I'd never thought about before, which I really appreciate that someone brought up, which is that back when this monument was put up, the indigenous peoples of this land had no right to vote. So, their voices were not heard in the beginning, and I'm witnessing over and over again their voices not being heard. It's time for us to stop telling people how they should feel and actually listen to how they're feeling. And it's time for that listening to really let it sink in, to really listen to those who've been harmed, to apologize, and to act towards remedying this situation and this harm. It's time to retire this racist monument. The truth is that it celebrates attempted genocide. Lots of people have been talking about the truth, and that's really the truth. The truth is it celebrates attempted genocide. And as the people tonight have already pointed out, it will continue to divide our community if we leave it there. And it physically divides our community. It's in the middle of our plaza, which prior to this colonial monument being put there, was a place where people could come together and celebrate and dance and literally see each other, which we can't do now with this big thing in the middle that I personally think is hideous.

So, at the very, very least, I hope that moving forward—I don't know if the timer—they didn't start the timer, and I—well, I'm about to end, so I just want to say that at the very least, you need to add to that list of options retiring the monument, getting rid of it. I didn't even hear that on the list, and that seems like a lot of people are asking for it, so it should at least be on that list. Thank you for your—

Good evening. My name is Shaine Wood. I live in District 2. I am a resident of Santa Fe. So, I'm going to do my introduction and identify myself and who I am in regards to my mother's clan. We are a matriarchal society. I also identify who I am from my father's side. I also identify my grandparents and where they come from. So, it's about history and community is where I come from before you. And I just want to thank you for the decisions you're about to make tonight, but I also want to offer guidance for those decisions because these aren't easy decisions. This, what you have, the choices you need to make as leadership for this community, as representatives of us, is hard. And I appreciate you taking that on voluntarily. It's not an easy task, and I do appreciate you sitting up there and listening to us.

In consideration for your decision about this, I just want to make sure that the guidance I can offer is not only for me right now in the present, but also for future generations that need to live with these decisions going forward. The future does not belong to the past. The future is our obligation right now, me as a father, to make sure that the environment my kids grow up in is not reflective of something historical. The future does not belong to the past. My kids shouldn't be reminded about the obelisk and what it was erected in honor of and what it meant for my people. My job here is to protect my kids as much as I can, and I'm sure you all share the same sentiment as well. So, please listen to me when I say the future does not belong to the past. Plazas are meant to celebrate. They're meant to unify. They're meant to come together. Right now, with the huge obstructions we have there, it's just really hard to do that. And there's a lot of opportunity for that to happen. There is a place to have solemn remembrance for the history that does reserve—like the dead do deserve respect to some extent. There's places for—there's museums, there's cemeteries. It shouldn't be in a plaza. So, please, thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, counselors. How I wish we and you were all here four years ago. My name is Philip Crump. I reside in District 2. And my comment is to expand on something that a citizen has already mentioned, from Alabama. I grew up in Memphis, Tennessee, a city that at that time was decorated with monuments to Nathan Bedford Forrest, the creator of the Ku Klux Klan, to Jefferson Davis, to the Confederacy. It's a home of a very active chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I myself am descended from and named for a Confederate officer, and I must say that I am delighted to be here in Santa Fe with a monument that honors soldiers, Anglo, Hispano, probably Pueblo and Jicarilla, who stopped the Confederacy in its tracks. And I shudder to think of what might have happened had the Confederacy been able to break through into the gold and silver fields in Colorado.

I also, just as an additional comment, would suggest that this provides an opportunity to acknowledge and honor the Native Americans who suffered so greatly in defending their homelands, their culture, their traditions, and their people. Not to erase history, but to acknowledge it and to acknowledge the wrongs that were committed and how things have changed in the present. Thank you very much.

Hello, Mayor, counselors. My name is Beverly Spears. I live in District 2, and I feel very strongly that the soldiers' monument needs to be restored in the plaza without the offending plaque. The meaning of defending our union against slavery and those who gave their lives for it is extremely important. Also, as an architect, I talked with my fellow architect and friend, Tina, who did the study for you, and I haven't read the report, but she mentioned, or I asked her about, the depth that was dug down was 32 inches, and they did not find the bottom of the monument. Also, and that implies that the base is very sound. Secondly, the cost of archaeology, which would be involved in rebuilding the base or moving it, is not in your cost estimates, and it would be considerable.

As the designer for the gazebo, I took into account the monument, which I think is very handsome. It's elegant. It's of its time. It's a smaller version of the Washington Monument in D.C. And if it were not there, our plaza would be lacking. I've been to Mexico two dozen times. I've seen hundreds of Mexican plazas. They all have a gazebo or a monument or a fountain in the center. It's a critical element. And if you take away the soldiers' monument, it's going to greatly diminish the plaza, or if you try to replace it with something else, you are never going to have consensus. So, thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Dr. Christina Marie Castro. I am introducing myself in my language of my mother's, mother's, mother's, mothers. The people of the Red Willow, Taos Pueblo. I'm also Isleta Pueblo, California Native, and Chicana. I'm enrolled at Taos. I've been coming here for years to speak against this obelisk. As an indigenous person and a single mom, this takes hours away from my actual responsibilities. I'm currently sick, but here I am. Any other racial demographic would never have to experience the dehumanization we are forced to contend with here. I am one of the founders of Three Sisters Collective, one of the organizations who folks say were responsible for the obelisk destruction. But I will say this, we did everything by the book, including meeting with Mayor Weber in June of 2020, to which he and the city of Santa Fe agreed to remove the obelisk and didn't follow through. This was the second time in recent history, well, not so recent history. The first was in 1973 when the city council agreed to take the monument down and didn't follow through. So, these are just two instances of broken promises to indigenous people in this city alone.

If the city and the people cared so much, where was the effort to preserve it in those four months till it came down on Indigenous People's Day? If you were there that day, you would know how powerful it was. Our ancestors were there with us and aided in those efforts. Since the inaction around this monument, I and others from my organization have been doxxed. I've had folks in this room who claim to be Catholic and for peace make egregious videos about me being in cahoots with Mayor Weber. I've had folks in this room go on record to say I'm not tribally affiliated and attempt to other me from my own communities. I've had people who I thought were my friends discard me in favor of Hispanic white supremacy. This has caused distress and fear and sadness in my own traditional homelands, which impacts my quality of life and mental health, and currently a suppressed immune system. It is only now that indigenous people are strengthening our voices against white supremacy that we're able to say enough is enough. Thousands of our tax dollars have been spent coming up with a solution. And now we're here again in a city that owes its economy to indigenous people. I say remove this disgusting atrocity once and for all. And I will defer the rest of my time, which I'm in the negative, but it seems like people can go past their allotted time. So, I'm going to go ahead and do that too, because I'm going to reclaim my time and give a moment of silence for those who were directly impacted, most impacted by this obelisk and that era, including the Diné and Mescalero Apache, and all those who continue to be impacted by ongoing waves of settler colonialism, Spanish American, and now nuclear, and those who continue to be impacted by white supremacy and the culture of death and violence.

Hello. My name is Cole Washburn. I'm a resident of District 4 and I'm a member of the Chickasaw Nation. Both sides of my family are Chickasaw, and my family traditionally has been against bringing down statues. That's just a stance that my tribe and my family has generally taken. But the thing is, once a statue's down, it is down. Unless you put it back up the next day, it is a very deliberate choice to put it back up, especially as long as it's been now. I don't really care about the symbolism of the statue. I think there are a lot of fair arguments made on both sides. But what I do care about is the symbolism of what our city does. The symbolism of putting it back up however many years later is very potent. It's a very deliberate message. And at this point, when you have this many people who are so vehemently opposed to it, and you make that decision in spite of this opposition, it's a deliberate message that shows that this is a concern that maybe you weighed, but ultimately you decided that all of these indigenous voices do not weigh up. I find that to be the thing that really makes me come up here and speak against putting the statue back up, is that it's been so long. The symbolism of what it would be doing is insane. You have so many people coming up here and talking about how their children are impacted by it. I remember being a kid looking at that statue. I didn't understand yet, but my parents explained it to me. I didn't feel good. It wasn't a happy feeling. It wasn't that bad. But can you imagine being in that position, having to show your kids that it's at the center of our city, and it is, no matter how you put it, it's going to be ugly. You take away the Savage Line, it's going to be ugly. Even if the only way to deal with this is for it to be completely gone, you change the statue at all, there's going to still be talks like, "Oh, it used to be racist." If you want to remove the racism from the history, and I understand there are a lot of people that that's not the point, they just want history, and I respect that. But I think now to make that choice would be a very loaded decision. And I think we just see time and time again that this is very tangible good that would come from it not going back up. Tangible, trackable, physical good. And we have yet to hear a single physical good that would come of reinstating the statue. Not symbolic stuff for sure, but nothing tangible. And we have people coming up here talking about how this would tangibly improve their lives and their children's lives of not having to see it. And we don't have anybody coming up here and saying, "Oh, this would really make my children's life a lot better if they could see it." Nobody has said that, and they're not going to, because it's not that type of thing. We all know how this works. We all know that something like that is going to have a negative effect physically and not a tangible beneficial effect. And I think that ultimately sums up why I have to talk about it. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Good evening, Mayor and City Councilors. My name is Jay Dylan, lifelong resident of Santa Fe. I'd like to offer an option, an option or a choice. I would like to see the base of the monument restored and cleaned up. I mean, it needs to be sandblasted. It's not in very good healthy shape, and plaques should be restored to represent what we currently feel as a society. But on top of the existing monument or base, I would like to see four distinct sculptures: Tewa, Spanish, Anglo, and maps of this area historically. Those sculptures could be created by artists from each of those communities, representing their history and what they want to represent in the present time and into the future. I envision steel sculptures because they could be vandal-proof, but they could be etched with each culture's desire to represent themselves currently and into the future. The broken pediment or obelisk could be restored or not restored, but it could be put in the museum or history museum. And if there is a need to restore or move that base, I would, for myself, like to see it go up to Fort Marcy, which is also a military installation. But I would like to see all cultures that I am familiar with be represented as they want to see themselves represented and as we see ourselves. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Adella Duran, and I reside in District 1. First, I'd like to say thank you to the governing body and to you, Mayor Garcia, for this meeting. I think the information shared by the SHPO was especially helpful. And it's also very helpful to gain a little bit more understanding about how this process is going to work. Our family home is just a few blocks from the Plaza. Our father, our grandfather were both born inside the house, and our great-grandfather built the house. So, I'm very proud of our family history here in Santa Fe. And like Miss Romero stated just a bit ago, never in my life, I was born and raised here, never in my life was the monument or obelisk posed to us as being racist. I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I decided to get up and add my name and my voice to the list of those who'd like to see the monument and the obelisk restored as much as possible to its original condition, in order to honor its history and its original intent. And like many others have stated here tonight, I also will respect the decision of this body and you, Mayor Garcia, because I know you have a tough job. And finally, I just want to thank you, Mayor Garcia, for sticking with your commitment to make this issue one of your priorities in your administration that you have done by scheduling this meeting tonight. Thank you all for your service.

My name is Raymond Era. I live on Hillside Avenue, which is District 1. First of all, I want to congratulate our new Mayor and City Councilors. And it's a pleasure to be up here before you guys. It's nice to see someone different because, in my opinion, our former Mayor ruined our culture and tried to ruin the part of Santa Fe that belongs to our people. My family has been here for generations, and for generations we have worked with the Pueblo Indians. They've become families, per se, because we've associated ourselves with them, and they've always been welcome here in Santa Fe at my grandfather's house, and it's part of our history as a family here in Santa Fe. The obelisk is something that is part of our history. I mean, why erase history? You can't replace it. The thing is that when the obelisk went down, the majority of the ones that were involved with it were not even from here. I don't know who brought them here, whether it was Webber or who that brought that group to Santa Fe to destroy the obelisk. And I blame former Mayor Webber for all that happened during that time. And if there's anyone that should pay for the replacement of the obelisk, I think it should be Mayor Webber. Thank you.

My name is Christine Winfield. I live in District 2. Hello, governing body. I had no plan to speak tonight either, but like this sister back here said about how ingrained the racism is that people here get to tell other people that they shouldn't be offended because, "I didn't know it was racist. I was never told it was racist, so it's fine." I grew up in the DC area in the 70s and 80s, surrounded by things named after Confederates. Every day I drove down Lee Jackson Memorial Highway. As a Black woman, do you think I don't know why they named that highway that with all the Black people that live in the South? That was a message to us that we still have our boot on your neck, and that you may be free, but you ain't that free. We had kids going to Stonewall Jackson High School, majority Black and Hispanic. Make it make sense. And they do it for a reason. How dare you compare your sorrow to watching the obelisk being destroyed to what Natives have suffered? How dare you? How dare you equate the movement of destroying the obelisk with the things that the Trump administration is trying to do? How dare you? The ultimate form of gaslighting, the ultimate form of your ingrained racism.

Mayor Garcia, City Council members, we are here today because of what happened five years ago, and that is the prior Mayor allowed the obelisk to be destroyed. The Pro-Patria sued the city. The Pro-Patria won that lawsuit. Now, some of you new councilors with a new attorney may not be aware of what the First District Court on December 20th, 2024, said, and that was the Pro-Patria versus the City of Santa Fe. On page 22 of that lawsuit, and I quote, "Within 180 days, by entry on this order, restore the Soldiers Monument to a like or similar condition to be depicted in the pre-2020 photograph set forth in the plaintiff's exhibit 10, thereby constituting permissible maintenance, repair or stabilization." Now, the Pro-Patria is prepared to use any legal means to ensure that this court order by the First District Court is adhered to. Of course, we hope it doesn't have to come to that. We now ask you rule in favor of the December 5th, 2025, feasibility study of the Soldiers Monument, this one right here that you all have. This is great, beautiful work, and actually you're being underpaid for the work that you did on this. In that report, we support Option 2B: rebuild the existing obelisk portion of the monument using new material and replace the controversial marble plaque. Now, I understand this might be a difficult decision for you, but rest assured, you will never get everybody to agree with you. There's always somebody that's going to be not satisfied. Now, do the right thing. Rebuild it at its current location. And please, please obey the law. Obey the District Court law that made a ruling on this issue, and that is to rebuild it. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Eli Brands for District 3. Mayor, governing body, excuse my voice. My allergies have just attacked me. My voice has been going out. I am, for the record, I want to say that I am for this current resolution to display the broken fragments of the obelisk. Let the people be reminded of what happened. Let the people be reminded of the criminal violence that happened to our city. Some of you may not know, but through my social media, I actually predicted the attack on the Soldiers Monument and other vandalism to other symbols of history that we have. This is because I pay attention to groups that are responsible. But here's the thing, they're not finished. The Soldiers Monument is the micro picture. The macro picture is way, way bigger. Moving forward, as you listen to the community, I think you should take into consideration if whoever you're listening to had a hand in criminally tearing down the monument in the first place, or if they are part of organizations that committed these crimes. If so, I would advise you to remember that these people and organizations are not done tearing our historical things down. Many, many other things, including the Cross of the Martyrs, which is factually way more offensive than the Soldiers Monument, will be in their crosshairs as well. I promise you that if we delete everything that's offensive, we'll have nothing. Literally every historical thing in our city is offensive to somebody, even the symbol of the City of Santa Fe. We love to recite cliché sayings like, "People who forget their own history are bound to repeat it," and then we vote to delete symbols of history. Those symbols may not always be comfortable, and that's history. It's not comfortable.

Rebuild that monument. Thank you.

Nilia Subnes: Hi, my name is Nilia Subnes. I live in District 1. I'm just not going to add more to all the eloquence that has been stated already today. I just have a quick question: Do you care about concrete or do you care about people? Thank you.

Are there any other members of the audience that would like to address the governing body?

Carl Duncan: My name is Carl Duncan. I live at White Sands Boulevard. I am the Chair of the Santa Fe Arts Commission. I am a Board of Trustee of the Institute of American Indian Arts, and I am the Executive Director of the Poeh Cultural Center at the Pueblo of Pojoaque. But I come here as an individual, and thank you for the time.

We gather here tonight not to talk just about a monument. What we're really here to talk about is who we are and who we aspire to be. The question before us is not simply whether a structure can be rebuilt; it's whether rebuilding it moves Santa Fe forward. I stand before you opposed to reconstructing Soldiers Monument on the Plaza, not out of anger, not out of disrespect for history, but out of a deep belief that history should guide us toward greater unity, not pull us backward into division.

The Plaza is at the heart of this city. It is a place where we all share space. It is a place where we celebrate, where we mourn, where we speak our truths. And in moments like this, it is where we decide what kind of community we want to model for our children. We are living in a time when immigrants are once again being targeted, when language that divides is louder than language that heals, when too many of our neighbors feel uncertain about their place in this country. Symbols matter in moments like this. Rebuilding a monument that many in this community experience as painful does not bring us together. It risks sending a message, even unintentionally, that some histories matter more than others, that some stories are elevated while others remain in the margins.

But Santa Fe has always been more than one story. We are a city layered in culture, faith, resilience, survival. The true strength of this place has never come from monuments of stone. That has come from people: artists, elders, youth, workers, families. Imagine if we took the resources proposed for building and invested them instead in affordable housing, in youth programs, in historic initiatives that tell the full and honest story of this place, and projects that lift up voices who have too often gone unheard. That would not erase history; it would deepen it. This is not about winning an argument. It's about choosing a direction. Thank you.

JD Marian: Hello, Mr. Mayor, City Council members. My name is JD Marian. I'm a member of the community. I'd like to start out by thanking all of you for being in your seats. You have a very difficult task in order to heal this community. So instead of talking about our history, because our history runs deep here in New Mexico and Santa Fe, it's in the land, it's in our blood. I just want to say that civilized societies don't tear down monuments, they erect them. I think we should put the obelisk back where it belongs, but at the same time, erect another monument downtown to commemorate our Pueblo brothers and sisters. This is a community. At this time, we want unity when it's hard to find it. I just ask and I pray that all of you will make the right choices for the community and do the right things. Thank you.

Doris Vhel McBride: Good evening. My name is Doris Vhel McBride, and I live on Kachina Loop. I am concerned with what is happening with all the disrespect and destruction of culture and history. We need to live in peace, respect, harmony, happiness, and love. We can all shine a light and make this world a better place. God wants us to love one another and forgive one another. We must stand up for truth and justice. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King Jr. God bless you all.

Any other members of the audience that would like to address the governing body? Madam City Clerk, is there anybody online?

City Clerk: Yes, Mayor. There are attendees in the Zoom room. We'll start with Rachel Thompson.

Rachel Thompson: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councilors, and thank you for having this session. My name is Rachel Thompson. I'm in District 2, and I did not intend to speak, but I'm just very moved by everything I've heard. And I began to think, just listening, separating the language that's on the obelisk from the shape of the obelisk. And I don't have the...

Can you hold on one second? Can we get them to start the clock? Okay.

I apologize, Miss Thompson.

Rachel Thompson: No, it's okay. I haven't heard the ship's report, and I'd love to read it. So I went digging back to the symbolism in the history of the obelisk. And of course, it was the most common memorial on town commons everywhere after the war and was associated with the Civil War. But it originates in Egypt, and it's a male symbol, unquestionably. I think we all get why, and that is not harmonious with the Native cultures. And sorry, but it also was, in the time of this statue, it has to do with mourning and a connection with the eternal, which is interesting and a positive thing. And I've been listening and wanting to figure out this thing between, you know, do we go back? Do we go forward? I mean, we all want to feel good about each other and are deeply saddened by the conflict of all of this. And it occurred to me that there might be something that was possible to do with a form of an obelisk, creating a new obelisk, but creating it on terms that are more harmonious with what we have today in the different cultures that we have today. And it might be carved. It might each side be carved by one group. I don't know. And that it could come to see both a new creation and a restarting, but again, holding on in a way to a form which is familiar and respectful, but doesn't call out any conflict or another and represents...

Am I the only one hearing like a brass band here?

I apologize, Miss Thompson. That's kind of the two-minute notice. So if you wouldn't mind, please just wrapping up your...

Rachel Thompson: I'm finished. And lastly, I just want to say that a number of people have written various things saying that we're an embarrassment somehow for tourists. And I just, I would never be embarrassed of anything in Santa Fe. And I would never feel embarrassed about the process that we're going through now. I think it's so essential, and we come first before the tourists. Thank you.

Stephanie Beninato: Thank you very much. As you know, I did give you some comments, so I'm not going to repeat those comments. However, as a 50-year resident who is a professional historian who works in historic preservation, I can't say that restoring the monument actually occurs if you don't put the north plaque back on. And so we are erasing history or forgetting history by not acknowledging that there was an attempt at genocide through the Indian Wars and that military who were paid were called heroes while those defending their homelands were called the so-called "savage."

What I'd like to comment on, though, because you can read my other comments, I think the monument should be moved or should be left alone. Although I like the idea of removing it, I'm becoming more and more attached to that idea. But I want to point out the historic preservation, the State Historic Preservation process. I did not find it to be very helpful. I thought it was very circular and indeterminate and that any choice you make is going to have an adverse effect and that you will have to justify that. In addition, you're not only going to be able to choose one, you're going to have to entertain several, and there'll be a long discussion with the DCA about what will actually happen. And so I just think it's a very convoluted process that you're going to have to go through now. I think it's unfortunate, and I really think it's unfortunate that they call the plaques just decoration or part of the design because if you want to get rid of everything that could be offensive, you just take all the plaques down. And as one person, I think Miss Thompson just suggested, you put up new plaques that celebrate different groups' histories. As somebody who has origins in Europe and Africa, I have to say that I am not an Anglo and that there is no such thing as Anglo culture, and I am offended when somebody tries to identify me as an Anglo since Anglo-Saxons oppressed my people. Thank you.

Autumn Gomez: Thank you, City Council. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Autumn Gomez. I was born and raised in Santa Fe, Pojoaque. I am living in District 1. And I've been here my whole life, almost 40 years. So I would like to remind people that I am a descendant of Comanche people, the nomadic so-called "savage" tribes referenced on the obelisk. And I would like you to know that presently, Comanche women who live here have only been matriarchs to our urban indigenous community. The word "savage" does not describe my mothers and my aunties who right now are selflessly serving our community. That word does not describe us. We are still here. And as much as you all hate for your ancestors to be spoken ill of, remember that you are also speaking ill of mine. The obelisk is broken. We can let it go. It represents more than meets the eye or can be read. This monument commemorates the loss of ties to the land for all New Mexicans. It represents a less-told history of indigenous people. It is not beloved. When it was a functional monument, it was full of roaches. When it was a functional monument, the Plaza was for everyone else, but it wasn't for me. So I hope this City Council can help create a place where we all feel welcome and go on to make decisions that impact our youth and our elders in a positive way. Thank you.

Bob White: The Open Circle, I'm sorry, that's I logged on to Zoom. That is not, I do not represent the Open Circle. This is Bob White. Just ignore that. I'm speaking for Bob White and Bob White alone. I have followed this discussion, this problem, almost since the day the obelisk went down. There have been many solutions proposed. It's taken us five years to get to the point where many solutions are still being proposed. I think that I did not hear all of the meeting tonight. I was at a Golden Dreams lecture the first hour of the meeting. So I probably missed a lot, but I've submitted written comment, and I'd like for the Council and Mayor to read that. But also, I want to add something to it. I think that anything going up there now that has a reference to the military engagements with the Native Americans. I don't know whether it was said at this meeting, but at one of the last meetings, well, the meeting where Councilor Romero-Wirth and Via Rael had their proposal, a representative from Red Nation said they were going to destroy whatever went up again. And you know, you got to figure that's the way it's going to be. It cannot be reconstructed as it is and be structurally sound. What I would propose to put on top of this monument, and it's just an example, Santa Fe was populated by Pueblo, by Hispanic, and by Mestizo. I'm talking about people who lived and worked in the town for 250, 300 years together. My brother grew up, my brother-in-law, my late brother-in-law grew up in Casa Solana with his best friend being a person who would later be the Governor of Picuris Pueblo. If I was going to put something up in the place of that monument, it would honor, in my case, my late father-in-law who was a war hero, Bataan Corregidor veteran who spent three years in a Japanese prisoner of war slave labor camp right alongside Tony Rea from Taos Pueblo.

They were best friends. When my father-in-law died on March 5th, 2010, it was an incredible storm after his service at the cathedral. Tony Rea, it was windy, it was cold, it was one of those March sleet storms. Tony Rea, who was in his mid-80s, drove from Dallas in this snowstorm, got there too late for the funeral, but showed up at the National Cemetery to honor his friend. And what we're talking about is friendship among cultures, among people who had

**Mr. Ray:** Can you please wrap up your comment?

**Mr. Ray:** Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but please put up something like that of a Pueblo.

**Mr. White:** Can you please wrap up your comment?

**Mr. White:** Okay, put up something that shows the cultures working together as they have for hundreds of years. Thank you. We have one more hand raised. Nia Baldo.

**Nia Baldo:** Hi. Good evening, counselors and Mayor Garcia. My name is Maya Valdo. I grew up in District 1 in Santa Fe. I'm 25 years old and I'm also a member of the Pueblo of Acoma. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight, but I just want to say that I am completely against the reconstruction of the monument. I remember growing up, my dad and my grandpa, who also spent a lot of time in Santa Fe, when they were growing up, they told me stories of the obelisk and how painful it was for them to walk by and to see themselves described in that way. I won't use the word, but I think we can all acknowledge how harmful that is.

And I really want to echo and uplift what Autumn Gomez shared earlier, that that is not a representation of who we are as Native people today, of who our women are, of who we represent. I think we are powerful people, and it's really frustrating to have to continue to advocate for our humanity and to continue to have these conversations that are so dehumanizing. And I don't even think people have realized how painful and dehumanizing it is to be in this space again, advocating against people who want to see this monument rebuilt.

I think that I also echo a lot of what Carl Duncan shared, that our community is so much more than that, and there are so many better ways that we could use our resources to support houseless people in our community, to support children and families. And I just am really frustrated that the idea of reconstructing the monument is even being proposed. Thank you.

**Mayor:** There is another hand raised. Two more hands were raised. We'll go with Don.

**Don Furlong:** Hello everyone. This is Don Furlong. I live in District 1. There's a lot of opinions. I don't think I just I wish to ask for the Native voices to be heard. That's all. Roberto Royal. Mr. Royal, you're muted.

**Roberto Reval:** Thank you. Roberto Reval, live in District 1. I strongly urge you to not restore the monument. Your three options were going to cost $400,000 to $800,000, and that money can be much better spent on many other things here in Santa Fe. The fact that the Pueblo indigenous people here are opposed to it should be honored. They have been so negatively impacted. In 1847, 19 indigenous people were hung right there on the plaza. Now, why would they have a monument to celebrate this? They talk about wanting to honor the Union soldiers that fought the Confederates. Well, the Union soldiers also fought the indigenous peoples throughout the West and killed hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples. We don't need a monument to that genocide. And I strongly urge you to take that monument to the dump where it belongs. Thank you.

**Mayor:** There are no other hands raised in the Zoom room.

**Mayor:** Okay, we'll do one last call here in the chamber for anybody that would like to provide public comment. Sure. Come on. Please step up to the mic.

**Parjo:** Hi, my name is Parjo. I'm in District 1. I already submitted a comment online, so I wasn't going to speak tonight, but after the person talked about so-called civilized societies don't take down monuments, I was raised by a Spaniard who was born and raised in Spain and lived during the Spanish Civil War. And I just want to comment that in Spain they have finally removed all the monuments dedicated to Franco. And across the country, there have been other monuments removed in the United States. And I don't I just am opposed to rebuilding the monument, and I don't want to presume where it should go. I think that should be left to the indigenous people in Ogapog. And I want to apologize to the indigenous people here and online who had to listen to comments that were harmful to them. And I'm not a recent transplant. I've lived and worked here for almost 40 years. Thank you.

**Mayor:** Are there any other members of the public that would like to provide comment? One last call online. One hand is raised. Jessica Montoya Truhill.

**Jessica Montoya Truhill:** Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, City Council. I'm here to speak not on behalf of anyone, but just to let you all know that it is offensive. The word "savage" is offensive, and I do not agree with rebuilding the obelisk. I do not agree that all Hispanic or Chicana people are in favor of rebuilding the obelisk, and that blanket statement is completely offensive. Please consider another option. Thank you.

**Mayor:** Are there any other hands up in online participants?

**Clerk:** No, no other hands are raised.

**Mayor:** Okay, given that, let's go ahead and move on to the next agenda item. Madam City Clerk,

**Clerk:** Next item, Mayor, is discussion of next steps and possible action.

**Mayor:** Okay. So, I had put on this portion of the agenda just so we as a governing body can hear the presentation, hear from the public, and then allow for a space for the governing body members to have a conversation. We, due to open meetings restrictions, we rarely have an opportunity where all nine of us can sit and actually have a conversation regarding what we just heard, whether it was through presentations or through public comment. And so with that, I'll go ahead and at the moment yield the floor to anybody that might want to discuss anything. I see Councilor Garcia, then we'll go to Councilor Faggali.

**Councilor Garcia:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, this is such a polarizing issue that, you know, when you sit up here on this side of the dais listening to each individual that comes up and gives from their heart really what they what needs to be done with this monument, it's difficult kind of to decipher all the information because many of it is coming from opinion and feeling. And how do we decide as a governing body members? Because ultimately we're going to have to decide on this, and I thank you, Mr. Mayor, for pushing this forward because we have to make a decision. Removing the monument, the soldiers' monument, isn't going to stop, isn't going to fix putting it back up. It's not going to fix for one side or the other. And so, we are challenged up here with how do we move forward without creating the most divisive or adding to more divisiveness in our community? And that's the challenge up here for all of us.

And I think that I've said it and I've said it up here before, I would support rebuilding the monument, but as we are going through this process, it's we all change a little bit, even if we're on one side or the other. And I hope we do change. I think that I'm just going to go back to my childhood and watching Rocky IV, and they're so divisive, divided, and at the end of the bout he says, "If you can change and if I can change, we all can change," because change is not optional in our community, in our society. And then I go back to what we have to do with the information that's provided. We do have a court order that we have to abide by. And how do we do that in the in the most civilized manner? Because we are now charged with the process. The Mayor has brought forth this process that says we have to do this, this, and this. And so again, this is the challenge that we have up here. It's stated over and over again, you know, we're mixed, we are, you know, and I don't know that any of that really makes us forced one decision or another. This is the City of Santa Fe, and we do have laws and we do have things that we should abide by. I don't know, this is just a comment part or if there's there's questions because we do have a lot of information for us to decipher here. And we have options. And so the options that are presented to us, which option satisfies the direction of the court of law, which was actually presented to us through a judgment? And so I'm going to ask actually right now ask the City Attorney or Interim City Attorney, which of these options actually satisfy the ruling and judgment of the court?

**City Attorney Martinez:** Thank you, Councilor Garcia, Mayor, members of the governing body. So there was a court order, as Mr. Behill pointed out, and the court actually gave the city two options. One would be to reconstruct the soldiers' monument to a pre-2020 condition, as Mr. Behill stated, or the city could act in accordance with the Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act and its related regulations. And so I think the options that are presented could form the basis of proceeding down the path with the Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act. The official from SHPO outlined that process a little bit to the governing body tonight, and we can have more discussion, but basically when this governing body chooses a direction to go, they need to submit a report to SHPO. SHPO will then respond to that report, and then we have a public hearing. We receive testimony from that public hearing as she outlined. We consider the alternatives that are presented in that testimony, and then we have to come up with a conclusion based off of our initial proposal, the city's initial proposal, the responses that we receive, and then any of the alternatives, including a no-build alternative. At that point in time, we provide that report to SHPO, and they respond to it as she indicated. They may concur or they may not concur with the dissent from its conclusions in the language of the regulation. So there are two paths to summarize. One would be to simply comply with the order. I think we would still have to comply in some way with the SHPO regulations where we begin the path outlined by SHPO, the SHPO representative.

**Councilor Garcia:** Thank you, City Attorney Martinez. I go back to trying to follow what the rules are because I think that's what we are supposed to be doing up here as elected officials. And when I go back to and I continue to go back to, now I asked the question about use and adverse effect, and anything that changes this to post-2020, is that correct? If not rebuilt to the pre-2020 ruling, would be considered an adverse effect or what's considered a use, which is law. Is that correct?

**City Attorney Martinez:** Generally, yes. A use would be an adverse effect on a significant historic site, including but not limited to partial or complete physical alteration or destruction or isolation of the site from its historic setting. The exceptions to any use would be ordinary maintenance and repair.

**Councilor Garcia:** Thank you. So again, I'm trying to narrow this down to what our actual options are. I mean, we can try to say, "Well, this isn't a use or this isn't an adverse effect," but it seems like it is. And until that law changes within the state with the through the Historic Preservation Board, I don't see any other option other than rebuilding it. Now, that will cost us money. And I know that that doesn't it doesn't satisfy. There's so many opinions. I even have an opinion. I've gone back and forth between getting rid of it, leaving it as it is. Rebuild. There's so many emotions that are going here, but we do have a rule of law that I think we need to be following.

And we may not like it. I don't like the rule that states if you're speeding at 100 miles per hour and you get caught, you're going to go to jail. I'm sorry, that's the law. And yet, how do I adhere to that or comply? And so, those are my thoughts. Those are my questions because it goes back to what I believe we are really truly having to do here. If we choose the second option, and this is speaking to my colleagues up here on the dais, we're in for five, six, seven, ten years. We wouldn't even be here anymore, I don't think, because it still doesn't satisfy the ruling, the judgment that has already been made. And so, we're here to talk about next steps, but it's difficult. We're going to have to decide. And for this moment, I'll go ahead and cede my time for any other members that want to speak to this. Those are my questions. Thank you.

**Councilor Castro:** I had a point of clarification.

**Councilor Castro:** That's just a quick point of clarification because I'm hearing two different things. City Attorney, would you explain again what the options were that were given in the ruling, please?

**City Attorney:** Excuse me, Councilor Castro, members of the governing body. So, the order basically broke it into an A and a B. And under subsection A, the city had to act within 180 days to restore the Soldiers Monument to the pre-2020 conditions, and there's a photograph indicating what that means. Or you basically have to act in accordance with SHPO. It sort of feels like the first timeline has slipped. The SHPO acting in accordance with SHPO may well lead to the conclusion that the city wants to restore it to its original condition. I don't know. That would have to be one of the alternatives that would have proposed to SHPO. Then it would begin that back and forth process, including future public hearings.

**Councilor Castro:** Thank you so much to the attorney and Mayor. Just to clarify, that was sort of why I asked the question initially about if this sufficed. I don't think that this study suffices that SHPO process. I think we're still in option B. No further questions.

**Mayor:** Thank you. That answered part of my question. So, thank you for that. My other question, Mayor, is what do we do now? We heard a lot of options. Do we present options to each other to then bring to SHPO? What happens now?

**Mayor:** So, essentially, the ball is in our court now. We are waiting to hear back from the Veterans Administration regarding the requirement from the 2024 resolution that asks for us to reach out to understand the feasibility of moving it to the cemetery. Until that official response is received, we have to adhere to that resolution. Now, with that being said, I don't think there's anything that would prohibit us from beginning to explore possible alternatives to that potential feasibility. Given the context that we have to wait to hear from the government, the federal government, I don't want to go against the resolution that was passed and then propose something different and then the government come back and say, "Oh, yes, it could be moved." That's when then the governing body could propose to move it with that broader context. Reaching out to see if it could be moved is not the proposal. It's just exploring the idea. Somebody would still have to bring forward an official proposal to move it to the cemetery should that response be made. So, that's why I'm saying we could, again, Mr. City Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing that stops us from beginning to have the discussion and dialogue around what we feel would be the best process to move forward. We can even come up, and not that we do it tonight, but say, "Well, we want to propose X, Y, and Z," but we have to wait to fulfill the merits of that resolution. Once that's fulfilled, we can officially move forward. I think that's what we're missing. Then we go through the whole process outlined by the State Historic Preservation Office.

**Councilor Castro:** Thank you. But even if we do move it, my understanding from the state is that the plaza is also historic. So, if the monument were to move to the cemetery or somewhere else, we would still have to clear with the state or go through this process to what is going to result on the plaza.

**Mayor:** Correct. Correct. So, it's as the City Attorney mentioned earlier, even the option of rebuilding, yes, has to go through that process because, as exhibited in the picture that I showed earlier this evening with the original obelisk piece, I think that would be the only way where we can move forward without consultation from the State Historic Preservation Office process. We still, we probably still would need to be in consultation with them, but it would not set in motion a SHPO process. And is Michelle, I think she left. So, we, I can confirm for you, but that's my understanding. If we were to move forward with in the report option one, we still would need to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office to make sure we're meeting all those requirements, but we would not have to go through that formal process she laid out. Anything else has to go through that formal process of us proposing an idea, us having a public hearing, us looking into alternative uses, and then hearing from the State Historic Preservation Office on our...

**Councilor Castro:** Thank you.

**Councilor Cassutt:** Mayor, point of clarification. Barring the first option, if we do go through the SHPO process, a State Historic Preservation process, sorry, we're trying not to do acronyms. We do have to engage in a public input process and solicit from the public, which you could potentially start that process now. Correct?

**Mayor:** We, if we have to have a proposal that we're putting forth, we're putting forth first. And with that being said, there potentially could be, in the understanding of the State Historic Preservation Office, some type of new feasibility study that needs to be done based off of the recommendation being put forward. So, this is where it's imperative that we work collaboratively with the State Historic Preservation Office to understand how any proposal that is moving forward will meet the merits of the State Historic Preservation Office as we, we have to kind of do these decision-making processes in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office no matter what is done to make sure we are not putting ourselves in a situation where we are having to undo things because the State Historic Preservation Office does not give their approval.

**Councilor Castro:** So, it feels like it's a pretty prescriptive process. So, we sort of have things laid out the way that we should be doing them because we are working with the State Historic Preservation Office. Also, I'm a little bit concerned about the breadth of information and making sure that we can verify some of the things that we're hearing. So, if anybody has any resources in terms of where they got their information to send us, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. I cede the floor.

**Mayor:** Any other comments? Yeah, Councilor Cassutt.

**Councilor Cassutt:** Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. Mr. Mayor, I think you and I are the only ones left that have been through every single one of these meetings. So, here's to you, bud. As we continue on, one question. I believe, if I am not mistaken, the last resolution that we passed, while we did make some amendments to stop from any formal decision or action being taken, if I recall correctly, there was still an action of removing the north plaque. Is that accurate that in that last resolution while we said, "Hey, we're not deciding anything else," we are deciding this?

**Mayor:** I'm going to defer right now to the City Attorney's Office because I believe he might have the resolution handy.

**City Attorney:** Thank you, Councilor Cassutt. So, this is for the public's information, Resolution Number 2024-43. The "Therefore be it resolved" clause specified that we would ask the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to accept the Soldiers Monument without the fourth plaque. I think that's what you're referring to.

**Councilor Cassutt:** Got it.

**City Attorney:** The second option was to hire experts to evaluate services and costs to rebuild a monument without the fourth plaque.

**Councilor Cassutt:** Okay.

**City Attorney:** And then finally, to hire qualified experts to evaluate the steps and cost to move the Soldiers Monument.

**Councilor Cassutt:** Got it. Okay. So, we did not necessarily direct for a fourth plaque to be removed at this time. Thank you for that clarification. I think this has been such an interesting topic. I mean, you talk about your silver linings of challenging things, and I have to say one of the silver linings of this being such a difficult issue, and like Councilor Garcia, I mean, I think I have run the gamut with solutions around this. But I suppose the benefit of that indecision is the amount of conversation I've been able to have with the community without having to defend it in a position. And I will say that that's been very enlightening for me. I've had some, you know, real personal, I guess, benefit from that. It's not easy by any stretch of the imagination. But I will say, you know, there were a couple comments today. I actually starred them in my notes in case you guys don't think that I listen. I have notebooks and notebooks full of all of your comments, so don't worry. I have them written down. Mr. Rosaker, I believe, I want to commend you and there was some other individual that I really appreciated you taking that time to listen because I think with this topic, this issue, there is a lot of emotion, there is a lot of pain, there's a lot there. And I feel like the ability to really listen and try to kind of carve through that. As I think about what are the next steps from the community, regardless of whether or not we rebuild, we move, we stay the same, whatever the case may be, I'm thinking a lot about some of this public hearing process. And I'm not sure that it would be beneficial based on the fact that I have sat through, I don't know what, four or five of these. What do you think, Mayor? A few of these. And again, my notes, they stay pretty much the same that doing another type of public hearing like this as part of this process is going to get us anywhere new. I know that there were some issues with CHART. I feel like we have done a really good job with some different public hearing processes of late. Some of the work that we've done around, you know, looking at some of our solutions for homelessness, the conversations around the budget. And so, in terms of my thoughts of where to go next, I think that as we are looking at these public hearing, public processes that we do have to have, so for anybody saying, "Hey, don't do any more public processes," we've already stated per SHPO, we're going to have to do something of that nature. I think what that looks like, I would like it to be more productive because I don't think I've heard things shift in that sense. And so, I'm not sure that having another one of these where we spend hours and people kind of state the same thing that they've been saying for five and a half years. Although again, you know, I got proved wrong that there are some changes happening. But I do want us to really think about that. And whether it is part of this process or whether it is part of the aftermath of a decision, I know that I've learned a lot. I know I've connected with people that I probably would not otherwise have connected with.

I know that going door-to-door, I've had the amazing opportunity of having everyone tell me, not everybody, about 75% of the doors that I knocked on say, "Hey, I have a great idea that nobody's going to object to." And I'm like, "Go talk to your neighbor." They don't like that idea. I can tell you I just spoke with them. But I think that there is this really rich understanding in the community, and this isn't fun. This isn't, you know, there's a lot of pain. We hear a lot of pain in the room. And how do we actually use that to move forward? I don't have an answer. I never have an answer. I get them at 3:00 a.m., and my partner and my mother get to hear about them the next morning. But I don't have a good solution. I just don't. This is tough. This really is. But I would really, really love to see how we figure out how to strengthen the community through this because it has been as hard of an experience as it has been. I feel really grateful that I've had it. So, I know that's not helpful in determining those next steps, but more for us to bite off and chew and think about it. Thanks, Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. Anybody else? So, there were some things mentioned tonight that I just want to respond to. The time capsule that was mentioned tonight, it's my understanding that our land use department has pretty much determined where that is located within the monument grounds. So, just to put that in consideration, the city does have that location. I'm not going to speak to that because then you're going to have some scavenger hunter going to go get a time capsule. There was mentioning that the city agreed to remove the obelisk. That is not true. Any formal agreement has to come before this governing body. The mayor does not have unilateral authority. Anything that the mayor proposes has to be ratified by the governing body. So, I just want to clarify that incorrect statement. The city never agreed to move the obelisk. An individual might have, but not the governing body.

Historic District Review Board. This is something, Mr. City Attorney, I want to work with you and look a little deeper on because prior to me being mayor, I thought that they did possibly have a hand in this and need to determine how we include them in this process that has now been clarified a little more for us that, and when I say process, the State Historic Preservation Office and how if the Historic District Review Board does have some type of oversight, what is their role and how we begin to include them in this process because again, as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, it's my priority to get a decision made as quick as possible. So, this is something we'll begin to work with offline.

Threats to destroy a monument should it be rebuilt. Now, one thing we've heard several times again is that we have the responsibility to honor the present, but most importantly, honor the future. And a lot of folks spoke to us being the role models and leaders, especially for our children. And we have to ensure that we are teaching our children that when there are injustices, there are right ways to go around things and there are wrong ways to go around things. One of the things I've learned over these past couple weeks as I've been beginning to work on this process is that the obelisk, the stone portion of it, under the estimation of our colleagues in the Cultural Affairs Department and I believe the State Historic Preservation Office, I can't remember. I don't want to assign the details, but I learned that their estimation is that that obelisk weighed five tons. Put that in perspective. That's five trucks. Now, to further put it in perspective, I am extremely thankful that nobody was injured during those events of October 2020. I completely understand the injustice folks felt. But more importantly, could anybody live with themselves if somebody was crushed under that falling obelisk? That is not the type of actions we want to teach to our young folks. You know, somebody mentioned the words of Martin Luther King, and I look to other leaders where there are right ways to fight injustice and then there's wrong ways. And I honestly believe, and I will commit to anybody that wants to be part of the process, that you have a seat at the table because it's again my priority to ensure that we're moving forward in a manner where residents know that action is being taken. And we also have to understand that no matter what's decided, people are going to be upset. Let's be honest. Let's live with that right now. Whatever is decided, people are going to be upset. And so this is where us nine folks that sit on this have the responsibility to ensure that we are going to make a decision that is going to lead to the most safe, most honest, and most transparent process possible.

So, as I mentioned, I'm not about to start a chart point 2.0. What I'm looking at, and I'm looking to my colleagues now to see if there's three other folks on this that are willing to work with me to begin this process of quickly coming to a decision. The reason why I say three is because we can't have rolling quorum issues and to get nine of us in a meeting consistently to get a process moving forward. We're going to sit here and it'll be December before something moves forward. And I, we owe it to the community to come to a decision as quick as possible. So, I don't need a, well, maybe I, I guess, Mr. City Attorney, can we, I don't know how if I can, we can appoint folks at the next governing body meeting for a task force. I mean, can play rock paper scissor and figure out which, which of us, I mean, but I, I know all of us are equally vested in this, and I'm trying to figure out a way where I can determine which three of my colleagues can I can work with to get this ball moving forward. Work collaboratively with the State Historic Preservation Office. Work collaboratively with the stakeholders in the community. I mean, we had over probably 100 folks testify tonight. How do we incorporate that voice and incorporate those individuals into the process without having to formulate a chart 2.0 and come to a decision that we can bring to the governing body as soon as we hear back from the Veterans Administration regarding their decision because as I've mentioned in the past when we passed this resolution, or the resolution I'm referring to in 2024, it clearly stipulated in the Veterans Administration's policies and procedures for accepting such item that it cannot be controversial. And this, this item, the monument, is controversial, and we have to be realistic with the path forward. It's in my opinion, meeting this last, be it further resolved that the city managers, after receiving the city manager reports, the governing body will determine the next steps regarding the soldier monument. So, we're waiting on the last report from the city manager regarding when he hears back or she hears back from the Veterans Administration. Then we can reasonably put forward a proposal. So, with that, I guess to get, like, seek your guidance on how we can quickly form a task force of four of us that way we can begin to work immediately on this.

City Attorney: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body. I think there are a couple of options. One is the body could have volunteers now that could decide, or alternatively, I would offer that you could reach out to me, and I can assemble a list and then discuss it with the mayor. But you would just reach out to me one-on-one, not CCing everyone else to avoid any kind of rolling quorum issues. And then at the next governing body meeting, probably not tomorrow unless everyone is really on top of it, the mayor could announce who is going to be on that subcommittee.

Mayor: Sure.

Councilor Garcia: Thank you. I think that, well, I don't know, maybe there are members up here who do not want to be on that. Maybe all of us want to be on that. And I go back to thinking about our processes as for elections and what happens when there's a tie in the state of New Mexico, they draw straws, don't they? So, maybe we put it up to a lottery. I know that may not be the most professional way of doing this, but you draw straws. That's just my recommendation.

Mayor: So, I just wondered, Counselor.

Councilor: Sorry.

Mayor: No, no, no, you're good. I just wonder too, like, we've been doing work sessions where all of us can get together and as long as we don't make a decision, do some, I'm just trying to think, like, I would, for me personally, I would want to be on it because I have some experience, like, I'm a mediator, and I work with the state frequently, as all of us have qualifications. So, I don't know how we decide this because I think everybody wants to be a part of this.

Councilor: Yeah, it's true.

Mayor: I think one of the least controversial ways would be to appoint one counselor per district. That might be easier. And potentially, and I would defer to my colleagues, the mayor could represent District Two if that was the will of the governing body, but the idea is that we would have representation from the entire city. Yes. Why don't we email Marcos if we're interested, and then we can see how much of a decision we have to make here because, you know, again, we don't know, I mean, maybe everybody does want to be a part of it, but that way we don't have to decide right now. We can see if this actually is something that we're going to have to dwindle down our numbers or not. Or maybe there are different aspects that groups can work on. I mean, we, I think we have some different solutions here. But I would say at this juncture, after four hours and 35 minutes of sitting in this chair, and not a real dinner, maybe, we shoot those emails over to Marcos, and then from there, we can determine whether or not we will need a larger process to figure that out. That's my suggestion. Thank you.

Mayor: Any other comments? Any other comments in general? Yes, Councilor Bamonte.

Councilor Bamonte: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was not really going to bring this up, but I just want the public to kind of help understand as well this situation that we face because a lot of people have told me, "We'll just listen to what the people say," right? And so, we've done that tonight. I have a very unofficial tally going here. We heard from 75 people roughly, and the number of people for and the number of people against were exactly the same. Just in this discussion and from the people online. And so, we have a difficult choice ahead of us, and as the mayor and others have stated, there is not going to be a single solution that is going to satisfy everyone. So, please keep this in mind as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Any other comments or questions, whether it's on the process, any thoughts, ideas?

Councilor: One last question.

Mayor: Yes. Yes. Councilor Castro.

Councilor Castro: I just want to thank everyone for all the comments, for their time, for the books that we received, for the emails. Continue to reach out to us.

Mayor: Anybody else? Well, I mean, I think as exhibited by the continued interest, I mean, there was a reason why these council chambers were packed today is because folks have a vested interest in how we move forward. Now, I will ask that folks continue to be engaged. I honestly think looking at a different way and how we can have a public hearing without having a one-way conversation, it's not productive. I want to be able to have a dialogue back and forth with folks because that is ultimately how we as a collective make a decision.

And that is on my priority list here, is to have that conversation with the State Historic Preservation Office to see how prescriptive that public hearing process is. Again, my goal is to get through this process and have a decision as quick as possible because, as outlined by the State Historic Preservation Office, that's a whole other gamut that's out of our control. But again, we owe it to the community to come to a decision on the matter.

So with that, if there's no other questions, comments, I'll echo the sentiments from my colleague. Thank you all for showing up, whether you're still here in chamber, virtually online, or you're going to watch the recording later. Your perspective, your voice is going to drive the final decision, knowing that there are, as Councilor Garcia mentioned, laws and judges' orders we have to adhere to. So with that, nothing else, we are adjourned for the evening. Thank you, everybody.