Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Apr 16, 2026 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1404 == Executive Summary == The meeting covered a wide range of planning and development topics, with a significant focus on the city's water policies and the ongoing updates to both the city's General Plan (Santa Fe Forward) and the Land Development Code. Key decisions included the approval of the agenda, consent agenda, minutes, and several findings and conclusions for specific cases. The city is actively working on updating its planning documents to be more streamlined and actionable, while also addressing the critical issue of water availability for new development through its water bank and conservation credit programs. There was also a presentation from Santa Fe County regarding their efforts to update their Sustainable Growth Management Plan, with an emphasis on aligning with the city's planning efforts, particularly concerning growth around shared boundaries. == Key Decisions == - Agenda approved with two case removals for later hearing. - Consent agenda approved. - Minutes from March 5th approved. - Findings and conclusions for case 2025-11386 approved. - Findings and conclusions for case 2025-11270 approved. - Findings and conclusions for case 2026-11784 approved. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda with specified changes — Approved (Aye vote). - Motion to approve the consent agenda — Approved (Aye vote). - Motion to approve the minutes for March 5th — Approved (Aye vote). - Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2025-11386 — Approved (Aye vote). - Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2025-11270 — Approved (Aye vote). - Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2026-11784 — Approved (Aye vote). == Public Comment == Public comments included a commissioner's request for prompt communication of agenda changes due to system limitations and an inquiry about a blue font on the agenda, which was clarified as a web page formatting issue. Alan Hook, Water Resource Coordinator, presented on the city's water development process and water bank, explaining how new development impacts water usage and the city's management strategies, including the recent increase in water offset fees. Questions were raised about the duration of the water offset fee (confirmed as one-time, perpetual), the health of the city's water buffer (affirmed as healthy), whether water rights expire (discussed adjudication), and how water costs are determined for small developments like casitas. == Topics == - General Plan Update (Santa Fe Forward) - Land Development Code Update - County Comprehensive Plan Update - Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration - Meeting Procedures & Agenda - Subcommittee Formation - Approval of Findings & Conclusions - Time Extension for Approvals - Public Engagement Strategy - Plan Implementation - Plan Document Structure - Development Policies == Full Transcript == Please let us know when we are live. We are live. Call the meeting to order and we'll proceed with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Barber, will you please lead it? Allegiance to the Republic. Thank you. We have a calling of the roll. Chair Smith. Here. Vice Chair Morando. Actually, Secretary Morando. Here. Commissioner McGee. Present. Commissioner Cate. Here. Chlow is excused, and Commissioner Embry is excused, and Commissioner Barber. Here. Commissioner McReynolds. Here. And Commissioner Freeland. Here. We have a quorum. Okay. I have a motion to approve the agenda. Well, I'm waiting for somebody. You did it in my background. Yeah, you have to have a motion and then you can. So, a motion to approve the agenda with changes to removing item case number 2025-107666 and removing case 2025107672780 South Meadows Road rezoning to be heard at a later date by staff. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I seconded. Maybe we don't have to do that. Seconded. It's been approved. Could I just ask that when there are changes to the agenda in the future that we hear about them when they happen, because there was a lot of confusion about missing material on the website and stuff. So when something happens and something's going to change, I know we can't change it until we get to the meeting, but I had several people confused as to why some material was present and other material wasn't present and we're trying to prepare. So when you learn that something isn't going to happen, please could you just tell us, hopefully, the same day? Chair Smith. Yes. Unfortunately, Civic Clerk is not very helpful in that regard, the system. So we will include it in an email to you just so that you can understand what's going on. That'll be great. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion to approve the minutes for March 5th. Motion to approve minutes as submitted. Second. Any amendment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Sign. Now we move to the approval of findings and conclusions case 2025-11386. Is this? Sure. If there are no questions. No changes to these from staff. Okay. Move to approve the findings and conclusions case 2025-11386. Second. Second. Scott. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And we hear a motion to approve finance conclusions at least 2025 11270 875 Nino. Motion to approve findings and conclusion. Whoops. No. Move to approve findings and conclusions for case number 20251270875 Camino Don Ailio family transfer subdivision. Second. Second. Comments. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. It carries. And finally to approve findings and conclusions for please 2026 11784 315 Senate Street Certificate of Compliance. Motion to approve. Second. Second it. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I have it. Consent agenda is how we say the light now. Well, that is us for staff communications. Thank you, Chair Smith. This evening we have a couple of presentations. Need to approve the case. You've approved the consent agenda, but the case itself needs to be approved. Is there a please? Yes. Can we get an explanation of why things are sometimes blue? I'm not quite sure. You know, I'm not quite sure about that one either because that this got uploaded and it's a web page thing. So, I don't know what happened to the font on that web page. I'll have to talk to Geraldine to see how why it turned colors. Gotcha. Usually a blue indicates a link. That's Yeah. And I wasn't sure if maybe it was like we had reviewed it last time or something. Okay. Thank you. I think that's usually. On to staff communications. I actually have one question about this case. So, and this is towards staff. When we're approving these time extensions and if the owner is trying to sell the property, does the time extension run with the property or with the applicant? The time extension is going to run with the approval. So, what the applicant is doing is he's extending your approval on that development out a year. Actually, the land use director approved it out a year. You're just confirming that approval. So whether he sells it or not, if that new owner abides by the development plan, then that extension will run with the land. Okay. Thank you. So we are okay on that item. Yes, that's what I thought. Okay. Staff communications. Thank you, Chair Smith. I'd like to introduce a couple of educational sessions. We'd like to provide you with an update to the activities that are going on relative to the general plan update as well as the as well as the, sorry, Land Development Code update. Sorry, I was just producing a packet for and I haven't switched gears. So, so we in first would like to have Alan Hook with our water department provide an educational session, especially with some of the new members. And then we will also have a presentation from the Santa Fe County planner relative. He's managing the update to their comprehensive plan. And we've been very fortunate to interact with Herbert. You may have seen him, Herbert Foster. You may have seen him at some of our technical working group meetings. And we're really establishing a really great relationship with them as well as the growth management director Alex Lad. So we are really working together to develop the comprehensive general plan so that it goes beyond our political boundary, which is just sort of a random line on a map and doesn't speak to the community as a whole. But first, Janice is going to provide a quick update on the status of where things are currently with those two projects. Thank you. Janice Bletnikov, long range strategic planner. I will just be giving you a brief presentation this evening and update on three main projects that we're working on. Santa Fe Forward, the Land Development Code update, and the Planning and Land Use Department fee study. We'll start with the General Plan Update, Santa Fe Forward, and the biggest development recently is the establishment of our subcommittees from this commission. This is a public announcement of the logistics that we have all settled on for the proceedings of these subcommittees that will commence work very soon here. The first is the Land Development Code Phase 2 Subcommittee. This consists of Commissioners Miranda, Freeland, and McReynolds. This group will be meeting on Fridays from 12:30 to 2:30 beginning on May 1st and monthly thereafter. The other subcommittee is the Long Range Planning General Plan Subcommittee, which consists of Commissioners Smith, McGee, Capen, and Barber. This group will be meeting on Tuesdays from 5:15 to 7:15 p.m. beginning on May 5th. And for the first three months, this subcommittee will be meeting twice monthly. After that, we will probably drop down to once monthly. To give you a brief look ahead for this project, as a reminder, Stage Gate 1, which included our information gathering and development of the assessment report, has gone to this commission and the technical working group in a joint workshop. It has gone to our community partners for their comment, and the governing body as well. That stage gate has closed. Stage Gates 2 and 3 are basically complete. They are about to be closed, and that is the development of the draft mission, vision, and strategies, as well as the draft scenario frameworks. This was brought to Planning Commission and Technical Working Group in a joint workshop, but it does still need to go to the community partners and out for public review and comment, as well as closing that stage gate at Governing Body. So that is our very next step. Following that, Stage Gate 4 is next, in which we craft the preferred plan. So we use the selected scenario framework and the elements of any other frameworks that ended up getting pulled into that to develop that plan, and that will then follow the same process where it goes to these entities for review and comment, goes out to the public for review and comment, and ultimately goes to Governing Body. That is Stage Gate 5, where we process the adoption of the general plan. We anticipate this in late summer of 2026, followed by Stage Gate 6, which is the implementation plan in fall of 2026. The implementation plan, you will remember, is the instructional guide for the general plan. This is where obligations and responsibilities are assigned, timelines are established, priorities are established, and funding sources are also identified. In recent months, the Land Use Department has been meeting with various city department leadership and their delegates. We have been presenting to them the draft scenario frameworks that you had seen previously, and we have met with them for their input, questions, and direction that they can provide to us so that we can avoid any conflicts with their plans and their priorities moving forward to the finalized scenario frameworks, which we will release to the public. The groups we've met with so far include Public Works and Utilities, Parks, Santa Fe County. This includes both the Growth Management Department, the Planning Division of that department, as well as Director Lamboy had recently presented these to the County Planning Commission. We've also met with the MPO, our Metropolitan Planning Organization and Transit in a group meeting. And up next, we will be seeking feedback on these scenario frameworks from the Affordable Housing Division, Film, Economic Development, Arts and Tourism as one session, and the Fire Department, Police Department, and Emergency Management as one session as well. We've also been meeting with some boards and commissions. Although these scenario frameworks are draft, it's likely that once they become final, there won't be enough time to meet with all the boards and commissions that we really would like to seek primary input from. These two have taken place so far. These include the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the MPO board, as well as the Economic Development Advisory Committee, our EDAC. And up next, we will be seeking time with the Municipal Tree Board, Arts Commission, and Community Development Commission. So, moving on to the Land Development Code. We're switching gears here. The Land Development Code Update Phase 2 was kicked off on April 14th. Now that the contract reassignment from Clarion Associates to Global Partners has been fully completed and executed, the purchase order for this is currently being issued. So we, Mr. Gobble will be able to bill for his work, and we had a very productive meeting with him the other day to kick this off, and we just wanted to give you a look ahead of the first upcoming tasks for the LDC update. The first task is that Matt Gobble of Global Partners will be under separate contract to repair the Phase 1 document. That is to say, some structural issues happened within the architecture of the document upon its adoption, and those need to be resolved before we can move forward with any kind of correction docket quite yet. If you have gone on to Municode, you will have seen some of these pagination errors, some various sections that are moved into different places, and that is an editing issue. So he will be reassembling this into its proper format first. Next, on April 28th, our Historic Board is having a workshop. As part of this, Matt Gobble of Global Partners will be facilitating a visioning session, and that is pertaining specifically to the direction they would like to seek on the architectural standards section of the Land Development Code. Next is two separate dockets that will be coming up regarding Phase One. The first is various clerical errors that were in the adopted document, and that is first the non-substantive clerical errors, followed then by the technical corrections that are substantive. So those are any kind of clerical error that happened that now would have some kind of material impact with its reinstatement or its correction that happened during the adoption. So those will be coming down the pike. You will see information coming about those. Following that, I just wanted to let you know that as far as zooming out regarding starting Phase Two in earnest, Phase Two will be delivered in multiple installments. We have discussed this with you before. It looks like it's going to be three installments, and those will be grouped topically. So they won't necessarily be grouped sequentially as they appear in the code, but they will be grouped by logical topics. Secondly, one other change is that the Phase Two assessment report, which was originally contracted to be one big report as it was with Phase One, will now come as multiple mini assessment reports. And there will be one assessment report per installment. So with those anticipated three installments, you will be receiving three mini diagnosis reports. As a reminder, these assessment reports basically lay out what has been previously identified from staff, elected and appointed officials, agents, and the public as problematic in our previous code, things that folks would really like to see fixed and our biggest pain points that need addressed. So, those will be addressed in smaller, more specific installments. Finally, I would like to introduce another project. We haven't talked to you about this yet, but the Planning and Land Use Department will be commencing a fee study regarding our development permits. During the city's budgeting process, it became apparent that Planning and Land Use is fiscally self-sufficient and also contributes significantly to the city's budget in addition to paying for our own way. In this assessment, we realized that since the fees for development permits have not been updated in five years or so, that they're not increasing annually or keeping pace with other like jurisdictions. Obsolete fee tables equal money left on the table that could be benefiting our community. Considering this, our department has issued a scope of work and requested quotes for an economic study to assess these fees, and the quotes are currently incoming. However, I wanted to just update you that the top candidate so far is already under contract with the city with Public Works to assess our impact fees. So impact fees, as you know, are different than development permit fees. But what that means is that they will be bringing a sense of a bigger picture because they are already so far along in the process of the impact fee study, and that's definitely an efficiency and a benefit to us. So we will be bringing updates to you as we progress in this procurement process, but we wanted to make sure that you knew everything that was going on in long-range planning. And with that, I stand for questions. Yes, we actually were just discussing it the other day as to whether or not we would have it limited to the LDC subcommittee of Planning Commission or the entire commission. And I believe where we landed, Director Lamboy, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we would like to have a visioning workshop with the entire Planning Commission if we are able to make this happen. Yes, that's correct. I feel that's an an important part of launching into Phase Two, and certainly we have some information from the assessment report from Phase One about the direction we want to go in with what we're calling the key issues. But the Planning Commission can help us with determining what are the first priorities, what we should do first. And certainly we'll also update you on some other initiatives like the street design guide that has been produced by our Public Works Department and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Some of those things will launch sooner, but we definitely want to get Smith, Commissioner Keepen. Yes, we will do that. Certainly there needs to be a bit of a refresher on what was in the assessment report from Phase One too long ago, and then we can certainly have something prepared for you. We're just, this is in the beginning stages of development with our consultant, but we'll put that together. I'll make sure to get that to you. Thank you. Well, they will be separate, and as a reminder, they will be reconvening or reporting back to each other at the second Planning Commission hearing of the month that happens on the third Thursday. But we anticipate that will happen every couple of months, like every two months or so, we'll probably do the reconvening so that the General Plan Subcommittee and the Land Development Code Subcommittee are speaking to each other. However, regarding the materials and documents, in the initial meetings of the subcommittees, which will happen on May 1st and May 5th, part of what we'll be discussing is which elements of these projects you would like to review first or consider first. There will be a ranking exercise so that we know where you stand on your own priorities as a commission. But other than that, I think we'll be, there will be, it's not as organized as one would hope, but as we go through the batches, because of the way our contract is structured, as we go through the batches, there will be various elements that you're reviewing at one time. So, of course, it involves a lot of lead time, you having time to meaningfully review and comment on the sections of code as proposals are brought forward, as issues are identified. And we'll really be relying on each of these subcommittees to help us think through the best ways that we can resolve the issues that have been identified in the Land Development Code and the General Plan. Per what Commissioner was just talking about, and the committee, the subcommittee members get some material before the meetings, because this is important stuff, and just being able to prepare a little bit and have some context, I think, would be very helpful in terms of what issues are going to be discussed and any backup that's available. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. That has definitely been identified previously by this commission, and we too seek to maximize the efficiency of those meetings since we only have two hours together at a time, and there's a lot of work to get through. So we will be sending you the agendas, I believe, will be going out tomorrow as those were finalized today, and then you will be receiving packets as we move on. For the first meeting, there isn't a packet to review because we're doing a lot of logistics and organizing, figuring things out. But from the second meeting on, we will have packets that get sent out to you for your review in advance. Thank you. Chair Smith, Commissioner Keen. That was the original hopeful timeline. We've had to go through a budget process and do a contract amendment to make sure that we can get this over the finish line. And so while I was able to get some one-time funding under the Weber administration, things are structured a little differently with this new Garcia administration. So mostly had a lot to do with the financials and contracts. And so the hopeful end date for the General Plan update or adoption is in the fall, October-ish. Then we also have the implementation plan, which we hope to adopt by December. So we'll be doing a lot of work for the implementation plan at the same time we're working on the General Plan, but those are the aspirational dates. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, there we go. Lights not on. Good evening. My name is Alan Hook. I'm a Water Resource Coordinator for the Water Division. Hopefully this doesn't flash on and off the whole time. Looks like I need AV. So tonight I'm going to talk about our water development process and utilizing what you may or may not have heard, but our water bank. So let me get up here. Okay. So the role of the water bank and development for us, the purpose is, and I'm going to actually, because I'm going blind eventually, take out my reading glasses. The role is to ensure adequate water for increased water use tied to new constructions. This is primarily new development we're talking about. On the demand side, we utilize water conservation, and so that creates demand capacity for all of us in the community, as well as supply side. So those are new water rights that are transferred to increase our overall supply for the Water Division. This code, I won't read it all, but this is in Chapter 14. It's directly related to development water budgets, and this is how we bring in either water rights or provide more water with water offset payments. So we're again, we're trying to offset our new demand on our water utility. So water bank in action. So to offset their demand, each developer can either bring in new water rights through what we call the water bank, and it doesn't necessarily work like a bank. It's maybe more like escrow, where the developer brings in the water rights. And I'll explain here the process for the next few slides. And then from there, they're going to designate it to the city and bring in the ownership to the city through our Buckman Wellfield. Or they could pay a water offset fee, and that's to offset the new demand. That's something we call under threshold for projects that are under certain thresholds, and I'll explain those in a few minutes. Or the water rights are typically what we call above threshold projects. And then affordable housing right now uses city-owned water conservation credits. So we subsidize the water utility, all affordable housing or low-price dwelling units with the water that we already have in our system. All right. So on your left here, you have the landowner or the developer or slash developer representative. And so they're proposing a project to the Land Use Department and the staff. And then they come to the City Center for water staff to determine or approve what's called a development water budget. And that that basically comes through what we call a utility service application. So there's the planning process that's going in parallel, as well as our process in the Water Division through the utility service application to determine their water usage based on new construction, for example, single-family residential, multi-family, could be commercial, restaurants, car washes, so on and so forth. So they have to determine their water uses based also on landscape irrigation budget. They subtract out water usage for affordable housing waivers or low-price dwelling units. Again, that's where we subsidize that water usage for their project. And then they calculate their total development water budget. We add a 9.8% contingency fee. Think of that as like, it's like the tax, because we have non-revenue water that we have to offset and also fire flow. They don't have to pay for fire flow. So this is a chart, and we just updated this chart and the expenditures as of January 1st. So these are examples from the top. We have different types of single-family dwelling units. So it's based on lot size, less than 6,000 square feet on up to 10,000 square feet. And you can see in that middle column, that's our multiplier. So for every single-family home less than 6,000 square feet, for example, it's 0.15 acre-feet per year. Does everybody know what an acre-foot is in gallons? Close to it? 325,859. Pretty close, approximately. So typically, an acre-foot is typically some communities conserve more water, but it's about four homes per acre-foot. So you can see the cost in the middle column for each of those single-family dwelling units is $5,400 to offset that fee. And that changed. We went from previously, almost more than 10 years of being at $16,600 per acre-foot cost. Now it's $36,000 per acre-foot, which is comparable to what Santa Fe County charges for their development. And you can see going down, there are senior complexes, senior living, mobile homes, accessory dwelling units are becoming more popular, commercials, restaurants, hotels, motels, grocery stores, retail. I won't read it all and bore you with the details, but that's how we determine it. So just to touch base on what I talked about before, above threshold. So these are the thresholds. So you have project types. The governing body decided, I'll give a little history here. Back in 2005, originally everybody had to bring in water rights, whether you're a large subdivision or you just wanted to build an accessory dwelling unit on your property. You had to go out and find pre-1907 Middle Rio Grande water rights from a farmer, a city somewhere, and transfer them up to the City of Santa Fe. That was a laborious process, and the governing body kind of realized, "Oops, maybe that's a little overbearing if you're just trying to build a casita for your family member." So they decided on these thresholds. So commercial for 5 acre-feet, if you're above that, you have to bring water rights. If you're below that, you can pay us the offset fee again at $36,000 per acre-foot. Mixed-use is 7.5 acre-feet. Residential is 10 acre-feet. So above threshold, it requires state-recognized water rights. This involves the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, which presently takes anywhere from 6 months to 18 months. We don't regulate that process on the transfer; it is the State Engineer that does. The staff provides the administration of the water right transaction. So we co-sign for that water right transfer application going to the State Engineer. Once the State Engineer approves it, then we come back to the developer and we give them what's called a designation certificate or transfer to be utilized in land use and planning. And I notice there, we're transferring it into the city's Buckman well field, and that's permit RG20516. We consider our well field as our savings account, whereas surface water supply is our cash flow from year to year. Sure. It has to come from the Middle Rio Grande, which starts at Otowi all the way down to Elephant Butte. So it's only that section that that water rights are from. But that's a good question. Another question. **Speaker:** I have another question. So, and I may have missed this in your explanation, but so each acre-foot costs $36,000. For how long is that? Just like for the life of the development? So, I pay $36,000 because I want this acre-foot, and then this development is here for 100 years, and I never have to pay again. **Speaker:** It's not even 100 years. It's, yeah, it's in perpetuity, if I get that word correctly. So you're paying a one-time fee. Yes, yes. So below threshold, to your point about being able to pay the city to dedicate conserved water to a project. So the idea is what I mentioned before, through water conservation. And the city has done a great job on that. We've been able to build out capacity within our utility to absorb new development. So when you pay for that, that's helping our infrastructure and our conservation programs actually provide this conserved water for your additional demand on our system. It's also partially, we used to go out and just directly buy water rights. So in other words, you're paying a small fee towards us to go out, find water rights in the open market. Used to be anywhere from $14,000, now they've gone up anywhere from $32,000, $36,000 and above. So it's getting harder to find water rights, and I'll address that in the next few slides. So again, if you're under these threshold amounts, 5 acre-feet, 7.5 if you're mixed-use, or residential is 10 acre-feet. So it's more favorable for residential to pay for offset fees versus going out and buying water rights. The administration is wholly within the city. So you don't have to deal with the State Engineer on this. So there are two choices when you come to the water division. Through engineering, you determine if you need an application to construct and dedicate water infrastructure, which is typically for larger projects, subdivisions, again, large commercial enterprise, or an application for meter services. So an application for meter services means I just have a single home that I want to build out. I just need a single meter. Again, usually that's under threshold. So all water bank offsets need to be paid prior to the approval of a building permit and before you can actually install the meter. This is a process that we're working through, and we hope it's even more efficient with OpenGov and planning and land use, because sometimes people forget that they have to offset their water, and they get way down the line. They get their financing. They may have done their recordation of their project. They're ready to go to building permit, and they come up to me and I say, "Where's your water rights? Have you gone to the State Engineer? Have you got water rights under a contract?" They say, "What? How long does this take?" So this has been an ongoing process, and as I'll talk about here in a little bit, it's becoming harder in the market. So sustainable development, development equals increased water demand, and Santa Fe is supported from a water resource perspective by, as I mentioned, water conservation and the purchase of water rights on the Rio Grande. The pumping of the Buckman well field impacts the Rio Grande. So we have to provide water offsets for that to the State Engineer and do accounting and monitoring. That impact obviously must be offset by the water rights that we have in our portfolio. So there's approximately about a 3,000 acre-foot buffer between current use and the estimated sustainable yield from our water supply sources. And you can see there in the second column, 2011 to 2025 is estimated our sustainability from our different sources. So that's 11,992 acre-feet. That's the Santa Fe River watershed. We have city's well field within the city limits. Then we have the Buckman well field where we transfer these water rights to. And then we also have the San Juan Chama project, which we divert up through the Rio Grande. So that's our total sustainable portfolio. And then the average water usage, I would say demand, from 2011 to last year, 2025, has been about 9,000 acre-feet. So that's our 3,000 acre-foot sustainable buffer. So current growth paradigm. Oh, sorry, your question. Yes. If it's relevant to the slide there, then it's easier for me going back and forth and tabulating. Yeah, I would say it's definitely a healthy buffer that we've held for a while because before our GPC was quite high in 1995, and we had a much smaller population. Some of the numbers are that we have, you know, we have conserved like 33% as Santa Fe has grown, while the population has actually increased by 25% since '95. So we're actually staying above the amount that we're actually growing into as a city. Could we always use more? Yes. And you'll see upcoming, our interim Public Utilities Director, Jesse Roach, is going to talk about what's up with water. So we do have a plan to get return flow credits for that San Juan Chama project and actually build out a potential new source. So while we bring in that San Juan Chama water, utilize it, taking a percentage of the wastewater and circling it back, and then we get more credit through the San Juan Chama project to bring in new drinking water. So we are in a good place. There are a lot of places like Albuquerque where they're directly dependent upon their San Juan Chama project water. Otherwise, they have to only utilize wells as their primary source. So we have, you know, Santa Fe River watershed, as well as our Buckman direct diversion as 90% of our supply, which is renewable surface water. That's a long answer to say yes. Thank you. So to the current growth paradigm, so I'm going to sort of jump into the chart. So this is the water demand offset method. So the first row is showing kind of on the X-axis on the top of the chart, 2020 through 2025. And the first row is development offset with water rights. So these are the amount of water rights that went to development per year. So you could see there was a big boom during the, during the real estate boom, I guess you would say, or housing boom in '21, '22. So we went from 31 to 133, 143 water rights coming through the bank, being designated to the Buckman well field for development. 49, 89, 24, last year was 68. So it's not to say it's cooling off, but it's still sort of dropped off from those peak years. Affordable housing development. So we went from 26, kind of pretty steady there, but last year we went up to 33 acre-feet again. And then development offset with fees, which I mentioned before to Commissioner McGee. That's an offset fee. So that has really steadily been increasing, which signifies small development is really growing, and last year we had a record year of 88 acre-feet for small development. So that could be infill development, you know, it could be more commercial businesses, but we are definitely, you know, you look at 2020 was only 14, and last year was 88. So development with offsetting with toilet retrofit credits. Just give a little background. Way back in '05, we had this toilet retrofit program where so many toilets could be certified for water conservation savings. We still have a few of those left in the market where they're certified toilet credits. So it's 0.025 acre-feet per credit. They're kind of like Willy Wonka tickets to us because developers come in, they say, "I still got some of these conservation credits." So we do allow those to offset their demand. And as you could see, it's been kind of a slow roll. 2022 acre-feet. '22 we had more with those, with the boom of development, but last year we didn't have any toilet red credits coming through. So as you could see, you know, '21 and '22 were big years, but even last year we got up to 189 total acre-feet. So more recent larger developments have decreased for the peak of '22, but we're still above the total 2010 through 2019 average. And we've actually utilized, as you know, in the past 5 years as much water rights. So these are private developers that went out and bought water rights. We've utilized as much in the last 5 years as we did in all of 2010 through 2019. So I will note there's a little asterisk there by that affordable housing development in 2025. We are now being offset with water conservation credits instead of city-owned unallocated water rights. So in our portfolio, we used to have quite a bit more unallocated water rights. But those kept getting allocated to affordable housing and also other projects like the Teen Center, other public projects. The governing body could say, "Well, Water Division, we want some of your unallocated water rights to go to that project, offset its demand." Now we've moved towards using conservation credits, and that was aggregate conservation that we acquired through an allocation of the governing body, recognizing how much water we had saved throughout the system. All right. So, purchased water rights tracked to the water bank. The permanent transfer of water rights from agricultural usage to municipal usage has become difficult presently due to availability and protests of water right transfers. We tried to buy 29 acre-feet of water rights from a family near Los Lunas in 2022. It was protested. Protests typically take a year to two years. The family decided they were going to pull out, and it was just becoming too cumbersome and costly in the timing. So that one fell through. Now we're starting to see what we didn't see in the past: private water rights being transferred to the city and our water bank being protested. We just had one last year and a new one recently for development. City code requires water right transfers within 60 days of a development's final approval by the Planning Commission. Even without a water right protest, the New Mexico OSE approval takes anywhere from 6 to 18 months. So, it is a timely, and time costs money, process. No private water rights were transferred into the water bank for the first time in 2025 for future developments. So that's that row in green. Green is all the water rights the private parties were transferring into the bank. Last year we had zero. And again, that may be a reflection of protests and/or the difficulty in going out and finding water rights. And then you could see the rate, that orange line, of water rights being designated for development over the past five years. There's a quick question. You were saying the difficulty of filing water rights. Is that because, I assume, do water rights—sorry, this may be sort of a rudimentary question, but I don't know a lot about water rights—do water rights expire? Is there a finite number? Is that why there would be more difficulty filing them, or is just more development happening throughout New Mexico that we're— No. That's a good question. Is there a finite number? Only because that's a larger discussion about the adjudication of all water rights in New Mexico. There may be—I mean, this is a reflection of—there may be coming a finite number of water rights available in the Middle Rio Grande. I'd mention that. I would also say, so historically, when this program started in 2009, it really kicked off January 1st of 2010. We were allowing any private party to bring in water rights and, in a way, park them into the bank until they were ready to move them forward into a development. Well, some of those parties realized, "Well, maybe if I park them in the bank, in the future, I could sell them to somebody else who's really desperate for a development." And so there was a number of water rights in the bank that private parties could then transfer with a change of ownership to you. If you are now like, "I need, I got a project that I need 30 acre-feet, and I just need five more or two more," and you want to, you could buy it from me, and we do a change of ownership, and then you designate all those different water rights there in the bank. What's happening is because in the bank, that water right transfer from the open market has already gone through the State Engineer's approval process, they're much more valuable. So you have value added for those water rights in the bank. In other words, open market, it may be $20,000 per acre-foot. In the bank, it's worth $35,000 because it's already been transferred and it's hanging out in our Buckman Wellfield. Now, you own it as the owner of it, but once you're ready to move forward, you could just do a change of ownership through the State Engineer. That usually takes anywhere from a couple weeks to a couple months versus going out into the market and waiting six to two years for that full transfer. So that's the, I think, the key difference of what's going on in the market right now. So, moving to conserve water tracked in the water bank. Again, affordable housing in 2025 is now being offset by water conservation credits versus water rights due to the limited number of unallocated city-owned water rights. Currently, we have 198 acre-feet of conservation credits available to both offset affordable housing, but it's also offsetting low-income dwelling units as well as all that 88 acre-feet that I talked about of below-threshold demand. So you can see in this table, each year we start off with a water conservation credit balance. We have conservation credits generated by our Water Conservation Office. So this is like washing machine rebates, rain barrels. They're not, I mean, unfortunately, they're not adding a lot of conservation credits with those small programs. That's more of a reflection of like the low-hanging fruit of the conservation tree has been plucked over the years. Where we're getting conservation is more in the aggregate, like outreach programs and people doing their part of, you know, not watering every day but following the watering guidelines of, you know, twice a week only during these few hours. But also the rate structure. The rate structure has really created more conservation because it's two-tiered. You start using too much water per month, you actually pay a lot more, and that creates demand restrictions. So over the years, the governing body had the choice of allocating, again, conservation credits to this conservation pool. So at the end of 2023, we did a resolution where they allocated 500 acre-feet to this pool of conservation credits. So that's in green. So at the beginning of 2024, we had 500 acre-feet. But we were in a deficit because of both affordable, but we were in a deficit mainly because of small development of about 150 acre-feet. And so 500 minus 150, you're already starting at kind of a 350 acre-foot balance. And you could start doing the math, you know, conservation credits designated below threshold 3188. So we are down to 198 acre-feet for low-income dwelling units, affordable housing, as well as small development. So we're moving through that balance quite quickly. And with that, I stand for any questions. I know this is a lot of data, a lot of information all at once. But I hope you could absorb the fact that the methodology that we have is set in code. It was something that the governing body a long time ago in 2010 set up. It's been very successful, but it may be to the point where it's a victim of its own success and that we've moved through our water rights portfolio where we had to allocate conservation credits from the whole system of our water utility, and development's using it. I mean, they're utilizing it quite quickly. So that again, with that, I stand for any questions. I'm curious if we've ever had to decrease the number of water rights that are out there. Say, for instance, due to drought, have we had to like purchase water rights to decrease the number available, or is that something that we've ever considered doing? No. In other words, if we go out and buy water rights, we're actually ending up increasing the amount of water rights available. So, we've never used like drought per se to restrict the amount of demand. That's not really, that wasn't really the purpose of the bank. It wasn't a demand management tool necessarily. Now the code itself and how you get water, I would say, is a bit of a demand management tool. In other words, the fact that you even have to go out and buy water rights is a key factor. And also the cost, as I mentioned, went from $60,600 to $36,000. So that's going to be a limiting factor on demand. But no, not due to drought. We've never used like a drought mechanism to restrict the demand or restrict the supply of water rights. Thank you. So back to just the cost per development. Like if you were building a casita, for instance, on your property, is the cost that you would pay upfront to offset those water rights based on the lot size, or is it based off the structure size? Like if you're building like a single, something small like an ADU or— So, here as an ADU, looking at my table, and I guess you guys lost the PowerPoint. Well, an ADU is only 0.09. It's coming out. Oh, you got to back up. So an ADU is 0.09. So you would pay $3,240 towards that ADU. Now, mind you, that's not your total cost for getting your ADU set up. Like, we have utility expansion charges, we have meter charges, so you're going to have to pay that plus the $3,250. And it's about, I think it's now about almost upwards of $6,000 to $7,000 for a new meter and attaching to the main line. It's interesting because we kind of have what water engineering needs for their payments, and then we have water resources, which is offsetting your demand. A lot of times people will say, "Well, I like the $3,240 versus the $4,000 you want to charge me engineering, and I'll just pay one of them." And we're like, "No, it's typically both." So that's the cost service. Another question. Yes. Yeah. So, I think I had it here before. Yeah, maybe I had the 198, but maybe I have a slide here. I was trying to find our affordable housing. Here, the demand for housing. Yeah, so it's three years, leave on this chart. Find the—Oh yeah. So we have about two and a half years. And so that's close to what the code says, and we're probably going to have to, similar to here, the 500 acre-feet, look for more water conservation credits because the code says that we have to have three years out. And as it ran before, it was like we were estimating like 26 acre-feet or so. And we've had to do quite a bit more than that. You know, like here we're showing 33 acre-feet for the conservation credits designated to affordable housing. So we're kind of moving faster than we anticipated historically at 6 acre-feet. So yeah, it's about two and a half years for that 198. But again, that 198 is also being consumed by the below-threshold developments. Because again, before we, you know, we don't, we try to see, watch these trends. You know, we're at what, average of 38 for below development, but then last year we jumped up to 88. So two and a half years, maybe even within two years, we're going to have to come with a resolution and say, "All right, we need more conservation credits, governing body, because we really, you know, development has really moved through these." And I could foresee that, I mean, you know, there's new grant programs for affordable housing, there's a push for affordable housing, which is a good thing. We just have to be prepared for it to subsidize that demand. Yeah. And again, you know, kind of from the water division, you'll see this on the "What's Up With Water" update. It's the San Juan-Chama return flow project is to provide new source and in many ways to, as I said before, there's that 3,000 acre-foot buffer with all our sources to expand that more, and at that point we can then, you know, turn to that supply and also say, "Okay, well, we still have even more room to grow into as a water utility." Do you explain how the credit works? Is it an applicant or developer files something and they say, "I have this many acres," and so the city says then, "Okay, you have that many acres, so now you get five credits." How does that get us behind or— Again, it's not a matter of credits, it's more, you know, what is your demand on the system? So it's based on these multipliers. Let's say you wanted a single-family home more than 10,890 square feet. You're at 10,900. So on your one acre, you build four of those at 0.25 for each of those homes, you're at one acre-foot. So at one acre-foot, now you have to pay $36,000. How we're offsetting that $36,000 that you paid for is through our conservation credits. Those conservation credits are going to basically provide for your demand from now until you still have those homes. This is one part of this. I didn't actually include it because again, I didn't want to get too into the weeds, but you can, let's say, for example, a restaurant you want to build, you bought a commercial property and before there was a storage unit, you can actually use the highest 24 months of the previous 10 years of their historical demand to offset your new demand as a restaurant. Now, a storage unit isn't going to have a lot of demand. A restaurant will, but at least you get the credit of that historical usage. So, you're only adding the net, the delta above what was previously used as a baseline. So, we don't ask everybody, "You have to bring in brand new, every time you have a new demand, you're going to add it to the system." We do credit historical usage. Thank you. Yeah, historical credits always made a lot of sense. Yeah, to me. What I, and maybe I don't, I've never used it, but I don't, there's not a direct mechanism for credits on new construction if you get under, essentially, if you provide credits in your project because you're so much more efficient. No, it just helps you to be more efficient. Right. So that's one I've thought about in my mind in terms of for phase two, if there could be some kind of carrot offered within the code to incentivize a developer to get, because I don't know if it pencils, because I know it's expensive, but I mean, for me, we've worked on water budgets for hotels a couple of times. That ends up being a lot of acre-feet. Yep. To me, hotels and multifamily, if there was a mechanism to feed you all credits through those projects being more efficient, that might be one way to build your bank up, right? Yeah, and there is kind of the WOR score, which was supposed to be kind of a portion of the sustainability plan. I mean, I'll be honest, we're decoupled from that, but there is a potential there that if a WOR score was showing more efficiency in a project, and I would say where we're seeing the most efficiency is in multifamily projects. I was going to show something here. For example, apartments, we showed as 0.16. That was an older audit estimate pre-2000. We're starting to see a lot of a developer can actually provide us what's called an alternative development water budget. So instead of this standard calculation at 0.16, a lot of multifamily developments have shown, "Oh, we're down to 0.10," to your point of efficiency, "we're down to 0.09." So if they show us an example of other apartment, townhomes, condominium projects that have been able to be that efficient, we'll allow that. So in the initial phase and approval of their project, we will allow that. Now we're in the code also able to say, "Okay, in a year, if you show you have kept yourself under that budget that you set at 0.09 or 0.10, that's fine. If not, you get four months to get back to where your actual usage is that we see from your consumption, and either you have to bring us water rights or you could pay the fee to make up that difference." Yep. I've been in those sort of back and forths with you in terms of us putting out our own numbers. That's like a developer trying to pay less, right? Prove their, I guess I'm, at least in this up here, I'm less interested about them paying less by justifying that they're using less water, but more, could there be a mechanism built into the code where if a developer certainly uses above a certain amount of water, takes energy conservation measures to get under a certain threshold, that, yeah. I mean, a while back we had what was called a water conservation contract. So it said, "Okay, you with the water conservation contract, you can go for three years and we'll see if you actually have those savings." We kind of tracked, to your point, those water conservation credits that were potentially generated versus like a standard budget versus their contract became really burdensome and overbearing for the conservation office to track all those attempts and then track the credits generated from that. That was the intention, and then, you know, we kind of came to this idea about WOR scores as an incentive. But right now, no, we don't have a program that says, "Okay, you're generating conservation versus the average, let's say, median usage of a multifamily project or commercial project, right? We'll utilize those conservation credits for portable housing or something else." We just don't have that program right now. Sure. Sure. One last question. I know obviously the county is a completely different entity, but do they have similar guidelines for their development as far as, you know, does anyone know? County water division. Just know their offset fee is $36,000 also. Okay. But I'm not sure if they have incentives or any other types of program or how they're doing affordable housing. That is a good question, and maybe somebody from the county planning would like to answer that. Thank you. All right, that's the very first. Okay. Yeah, that's a fee-in-lieu contract. So if you, let's say, have 40 units and 10 of those units are affordable, based on the Santa Fe Homes program, we accept that contract, and we identify that out of those 40 units, 10 of them are affordable. We subsidize that 10 acre-feet. So you're only paying for the 30 units. Yeah. If they're using, if they do fee-in-lieu, they're building 40 units, we charge them 40 units for their water budget. Yeah. It doesn't have to be set. So every year we have the ability to change those fees. Let me go back to the chart. So every year we have the ability to reset those fees. This year we set it at $36,000 because that seemed to be the rate in conjunction with the county, but that county rate was actually based on a water rate purchase they had made also. So again, we are seeing about that $36,000. We sort of audit how much the water right is going for in our bank, and it was like, I would say last year, maybe the previous year, at $32,000. It's definitely crept up to the $36,000. So we felt that $36,000 rate per acre-foot was a fair market value for an offset fee because both the county and the city are in alignment, and from what we've seen from private entities that have water rights in our Buckman Wellfield in the bank have been selling it for about that rate. We can change it every year. Yep. Yep. Yeah. And if, you know, like the market crashed and it became less expensive, we would bring it back down. Yep. TJ. Yep. So $36,000. Yep. We're seeing it private. Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah, it's definitely, I mean, I would say in the last year, it's dramatically changing. Yeah, and I, you know, our feeling was again, in working in conjunction with the county, and as you all know, government agencies, municipalities, it takes time to move forward. So we didn't want to have like this knee-jerk reaction. We're going up $50,000, and you used to be paying $16,600. You know, people would lose their mind. But I think they, you know, the market has shown on average there in the last year, year and a half, they've been paying $32,000 to $36,000. It is probably because of demand going up to $50,000 to $75,000. I mean, that's a reality, but we don't want to shock the market and the system and the projects that are already in the pipeline that are trying to move forward to the point they're actually going vertical and constructing. So there's a bit of a lag time on projects, as you all probably know, and staff can attest to. So, you know, you don't want to penalize them for having started this process and getting down the road of what their financing might have already been set up for. Oh, yeah. And the county does not, of note, Santa Fe County doesn't require water rights the way we do. So they just have a straight offset fee. With the 88, you're seeing the below threshold. So that's the below 10 acre-feet. For residential. Yes, residential. And so what does that equate to for how many houses? Oh, 10 acre-feet is about 60, I would say, single-family homes on average. It comes out to a little over 120 apartment units. And that's just my experience with the market. I'm just spitballing there. Yes, Chair. Thank you and have a good evening. And last but not least, Mr. Herbert Foster from Santa Monica. Good evening, Commissioners. I'll try to remember to speak closely to the microphone. All I can say about county water is I know just one thing: it's equally confusing and distressing. I have a very brief, unrehearsed, unrefined introduction of myself and what we're doing, what I think we're, hope we're going to be doing with our revisions to our general plan. My job title is team leader. My day job, I manage the transfer of development rights program, something I'd be happy to talk to you about more later, but I'm also managing the update to our general plan. We call ours Sustainable Growth Management Plan, and like the city, we are updating it and initiating that process. We are at the very, very beginning stages, so much that I don't even have slides for you tonight. But I will be very, very brief. I want to thank Heather and the staff. Heather was kind enough to present BA Santa Fe Forward to our planning commission last month. So I'm happy to reciprocate as best as I can, and also thanks to the staff, your staff, because we meet every month and we've been talking at the staff level about both of our efforts and trading information, and I've been stealing and borrowing and begging from all the work that you have done before us so that we don't have to duplicate what's already been done in great part. So there's a lot of information that we're benefiting from. So thank you for that. And I'm certain that our conversations will elevate to this level and leadership as we move forward and develop the draft. And ideally, we would like to have both of our general plans say the same thing about the same issues and have the same kind of strategy, particularly when it comes to growth and development around the city borders. So exactly what that is, what those look like, can't quite say yet, but I know those conversations are happening and will continue. I'll start a little bit by just saying that where we are beginning is with our public engagement. And so we have started our public participation kind of planning process, and we are looking at forming a working group of staff. We'd like to invite at least one of your staff to serve on our working group. I imagine it'll be Janice, my counterpart in long-range planning. I'm a team leader, but I'm really a long-range land use planner ultimately is what I do on a daily basis. So what we're suggesting to our commission is forming a working group. It'll be key county staff. I would presume Janice will be invited and other staff members. We're considering this like a mini public, a broad representation of the diverse communities. We'll be asking commissioners to appoint members and supplement them with staff. Also, as you have done, we're also looking at a small community grant program. We want to compensate organizations and individuals who give their time to share their information and experience with us and to participate. So, we'll be launching that subject to budget approval. One of the first things that we do, in addition to forming a working group, we'll also have a website and some surveys to align with the different phases of our process and so on, and more focused groups for those areas or populations or topics that we don't quite catch in our working group and other outreach efforts that we have. Excuse me. So, we're just beginning with the public engagement planning process. Who do we need to talk to? Who is normally not engaged in these conversations about growth and development? Who really needs to benefit from development who typically haven't? So, we're designing our engagement tools and strategies around priority populations, much like you have. I'll be asking the Board of County Commissioners to adopt our public engagement plan in June. Then we'll have a more formal launch of our Sustainable Growth Management Plan revision. We're talking about what to call this thing. We don't quite know. You've chosen Santa Fe Forward. We're looking at different ideas other than the Sustainable Growth Management Plan revision. We want to do a little bit better than that. There's this thing at Santa Fe County, we have to have the word "sustainable" as the prefix to just everything that we say. We have a sustainable land development code. We have, so it's a word. We want to put that word in operation, in our planning, in our decisions about development for sure. And that's the goal of what we're really doing. So the plan, frankly, is not just rhetoric of 300 pages. It's putting thought and vision into action, accountability. And I'll add one thing about our current Sustainable Growth Management Plan. It's 300 pages. Three of them are titled "Implementation." I'm going to want to reverse that, not have 300 pages of implementation, but my vision for this document and the process is lean. We don't want to duplicate work that has already been done. There are housing plans, water plans, open space plans, trails plans, economic development plans that I want to use and use this general plan update as a container for all of the work that's already been done and analyze it and hopefully make sense of it and put forth a more consolidated approach to what we're doing and how we treat growth and development. Some ideas of what, one thing I really like about the Santa Fe Forward is something that Heather had put in one of the slides that I really embrace: "If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority." That's so important to me as a planner, having authored these plans and having read them. If they are everything to everybody, they are nothing to nobody. We have in the SGMP 60 goals, 316 policies, and 266 strategies. It's mind-boggling, frankly, to look at that. And I'm not looking forward to the report card to see how much of those have been completed or actually written to be doable. So the way it's written is also very, very difficult to say, "Are we doing this or not?" So something I'm keeping my eye on, and in addition to lean, I'm hoping for a 100-page document where a lot of that is implementation. Let's pick the first few things that we think we can do and we know we can do within the next couple of years instead of 266 things that we think we want to do in the next 20 years. So that's where I'm really focusing. Some of the things that I expect will be in this document itself, as I said, an inventory of the planning work that's already done. The last thing I'm wanting to do and willing to do with the advisory committee and the community is revisit goals and strategies and actions for housing goals and strategies. It's already been done. I think that the role of this document is, "Okay, now that we know what has been done before, let's prioritize that work." In addition, it's primarily, above all, I believe, a land use plan. How and where do we want to grow? So there will be a preferred land use map. What I'm suggesting is that we work with community types or place types. So let the rural be rural, right? Let the, and put the systems and the preferred land uses in place and tie that to our development code. If your development project is consistent with the preferred land use, meaning rural stays rural, then you'll get approved. If not, then if you want to propose an urban or suburban type in a rural, the answer is no. And similarly, on the opposite end, if you want to do very low density in a designated urban place, the answer would be no. So we want to put some teeth behind the land use sections and the land use map. So it's more than goals and aspirations. It's operationalized in this plan. And beyond the adoption, which we expect to be in 18 months from now, the, whatever we call the revision to the Sustainable Growth Management Plan, about 18, maybe 20 months. And so then the real work begins, I believe, of a real wholesale revision to our development code so that the development is producing the kind that the community is really envisioning for itself. A few other things, I'm imagining a separate section of the document, development policies. It's a list of all the things that we're encouraging developers to do because right now we have to go through and back and forth of the 300 pages and do a development review of, "Is this subdivision consistent or not?" So trying to use this document as more than just a checklist, but a statement of aspirations for what rural communities ought to develop like, what we call contemporary communities, which is post-automobile cul-de-sac, windy road, single-use subdivisions, so that they can either, well, we want to stay the way they are, they have their HOA, they're good, or if they want to evolve into something different, that the SGMP revision will enable that through the preferred land use plan. Right? So I want to make this easy for everybody. So if a developer wants to come in and they have a discretionary permit that has to be consistent with the plan, they can say, "Do all these things on a certain page." So it's not nitpicking, and I call it cherry-picking. Maybe you've seen that the applications will cherry-pick and say, "Well," and they just conveniently forget all the other things that they're not consistent with. Trying to use the document as a tool, as a checklist for developers, what we want them to do, and for the staff. "Okay, did you do it? Did you not do it? Did you do it? Did you not do it?" So, we're not fishing around in the document all the time. Anyway, a matter of mechanics for us, but there will be goals and strategies for sure. And I'm trying to keep this lean, meaning that the SGMP revision is countywide issues. So often I've seen comprehensive plans get into, "Well, there should be a roundabout over here. There should be," you know, these kinds of things that are very community-specific. I want to keep the scale of this plan what the county can do, what affects the entire county, things like public finance, public engagement, impact fees, those sorts of things, to keep it at that level where I believe the real work and the juice comes in at the community level. So we want to make sure the community plans are consistent with the overall general plan. We have what we call developments of countywide impact. So we'll focus on those sorts of things at the countywide level. The challenge is it's a diverse, big county. So how do we capture all of that in one document that's yet to be seen? And like I said, we want to really focus on the implementation to assemble all the work that has already been done, compile it, put it through a criteria and a process of where do you get the most juice for the squeeze for some of these projects so it's not 266 recommended projects, looking at our equity, who's benefiting from these projects. And otherwise, I know I will be back in the near future for more formal presentations once we formalize and I have more to say about it. But thanks to Heather, thanks to Janice and the staff for reciprocating what we're doing, and you'll be hearing a lot more from me, as I'm sure from Santa Fe Forward, as we move forward together. Happy to answer questions if you have them, just as long as they're not about water. Within the county, where are you seeing that our community is growing the fastest, in which areas? What we call the Community College District, Highway 14 corridor. There's not a lot of development really happening in the county outside of that area, and most of it, almost all of it, is single-family detached residential and subdivisions. Thank you. 2015 it was adopted. It was really done in 2010 and then revised in 2015. So it's 15 years old. Appreciate your time. Thanks very much. Thank you. The important thing about collaborating with the county is one of the things we've been doing is we've been drafting our maps, eventually getting toward the future land use map, which defines the general direction for different types of uses throughout the city. We've actually gotten feedback from Herbert and Alex Lad on some of those categories, those edges. So, our study area for the general plan update was three, well, not three miles exactly, but it was beyond our city boundaries because we do, we are planning for 20 years. And by the way, yeah, they're much better than we are in terms of the last update being 1999 here. So, right. So, they'll be helping us a lot with that sort of those edges and how we approach the edges. The MPO is really involved with the transportation network and how things work. I think the MPO was involved with the roundabout there on Highway 14, and provided comments to the county on that, something that's under construction right now. So, but the county is a very special entity to work for. I worked for a county in Florida, and they have done some amazing work, Herbert and his team, on community plans. And that's something that's very different from a city where the Village of La Bajada, for instance, they did a community plan for that village that's at the base of the hill, and it has very unique circumstances, something different from all the other areas throughout Santa Fe County. Like Sper said, it was very diverse. And so, really trying to collaborate with them will make our plan much richer and also really sort of think better. Sounds like we're going to learn from each other. That's terrific. Other questions? Thank you so much. Great job. Are there matters that members of the commission would like to bring forward before we adjourn? Enough fun for one night. Yes. Thank you.